i-'l 
 
 r^> 
 
 
 
 O J 
 
 ;' •> 
 
 <;1 
 
 ,S 
 
 
 .'s 
 
 J , ' 
 
 1^-, 
 
 
 S, 
 
 ii'< 
 
 - > 
 J- , 
 
 '. ? 
 
 A, 
 
15 S K \ C I. C » \ 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OP 
 CALIFORNIA . 
 
IRELAND'S Case Stated 
 
 IN REPLY TO 
 
 MR. FROUDE, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 VERY EEY. T. E". BURKE, O.P. 
 
 ' Nec tecum possum vivere nee sine te." 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 P. M. HAYERTY, PUBLISHER, 
 
 5 Barclay Street. 
 1878. 
 
5 3/t/^fX 
 
 Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1872, by 
 
 P. M. HAVERTY, 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
 Imprimatur 
 
 F^. M. D. Lilly, O.P. 
 F. I. R. Meagher, O.P. 
 
 LOAN STACK 
 
 LaNQE, LnTLK dt HlLLMAW, 
 PRINTKRB, KLKCTROTYPKRS AND STSRKOTYFKIUI, 
 
 108 TO 114 WoosTKK Strkit, N. Y. 
 
i>A 911 
 iS7i 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 When I was first asked to reply to Mr. Froude*s lec- 
 tures, I was very unwilling to do it. As a priest, I 
 felt reluctant to enter upon a controversy which prom- 
 ised to be purely secular. As an Irishman, I thought 
 that Mr. Froude's was only one other utterance of 
 those old anti-Irish calumnies which it has been the 
 fashion of English writers to invent and repeat, and 
 which have been discussed, answered, refuted a hun- 
 dred times. My friends, however, urged their request, 
 and Mr. Froude's lectures took a tone so damaging at 
 once to the Irish character, and so bitterly hostile to 
 the Catholic religion, that I felt justified in attempting 
 to answer him in defense of my faith and my country. 
 
 I cannot claim for my lectures anything like com- 
 pleteness as an answer to Mr. Froude. The call upon 
 me was so sudden, and the time so short ; the ground 
 which Mr. Froude covered was so extensive, and the 
 means of meeting him — such as authorities, references, 
 etc. — so limited on my part, that I am far from satis- 
 fied with my work, and I have heard with pleasure 
 
 330 
 
6 Preface. 
 
 that Mr. John Mitchel, whose great historical knowl- 
 edge, vigorous style, and undoubted love for Ireland, 
 render him eminently fitted for the task, has under- 
 taken in a series of papers to meet and refute the 
 views of the English historian. The warmth of de- 
 bate led Mr. Froude, in his rejoinder to me, not only 
 into a temporary forgetfulness of the usual courtesies 
 of gentlemen, but also into assertions which have been 
 repudiated and disproved ; such for example as making 
 the Catholic Church answerable for the bloody edicts 
 of Charles the Fifth, a monarch who never hesitated to 
 persecute the Church and her head whenever policies 
 dictated, who coquetted with the reformers of the 
 Reformation, until policy dictated an opposite course, 
 and whose army committed more terrible ravages on 
 Rome, than any that we read of — Goth, Vandal, or 
 Lombard. 
 
 The Church, however, that for nineteen hundred 
 years has withstood and conquered every opponent, is 
 not likely to fall before the small, though poisoned 
 spear of a Froude ; and the Irish nationality, which 
 has survived all the efforts of England and all 
 the calumnies of her writers for seven hundred 
 years, is not likely to be withered up by the scorn, nor 
 made effete by the sneering sympathy of such a man 
 as he who now stands before the American world, 
 pitying, reviling, scorning the Irish people and their 
 history. 
 
CONTENTS, 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 The Norman Invasion, . . . . 9 
 
 PAGE 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 Ireland under the Tudors, . . 59 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 Ireland under Cromwell, . . .96 
 
 LECTURE* IV. 
 Grattan and THE Volunteers, . . 152 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 Ireland since the Union, ... 199 
 Appendix, 229 
 
LECTURE I. 
 THE NORMAN INVASION. 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: It is a strange fact that 
 the old battle that has been raging for seven hundred 
 years, should be renewed again so far away from the old 
 land. The question on which I am come to speak to you 
 this evening has been argued at many a council board, 
 debated in many a Parliament, disputed on many a well- 
 fought field, and is not yet decided — the question be- 
 tween England and Ireland. Amongst the visitors to 
 America, who came over this year, there was one gen- 
 tleman, distinguished in Europe for his style of writing 
 and for his historical knowledge, the author of several 
 works which have created a profound sensation, at least 
 for their originality. Mr. Froude has frankly stated that 
 he came over to this country to deal with England and 
 with the Irish question, viewing it from an English stand- 
 point ; that like a true man he came to America to make 
 the best case that he could for his own country ; that 
 he came to state that case to an American public as 
 
10 Lecture /. 
 
 to a grand jury, and to demand a verdict from them, the 
 most extraordinary that was ever yet demanded from 
 any people, namely, the declaration that England was 
 right in the manner in which she has treated my native 
 land for seven hundred years. ' It seems, according to 
 this learned gentleman, that we Irish have been badly 
 treated — so much he confesses ; but he puts in as a plea 
 that we only got what we deserved, . It is true, he says, 
 that we have governed them badly ; the reason is, be- 
 cause it was impossible to govern them rightly. It is 
 true that we have robbed them ; the reason is, because 
 it was a pity to leave them their own, they made 
 such a bad use of it. It is true we have persecuted 
 them ; the reason is, persecution was a fashion of the 
 time, and the order of the day. On these pleas there 
 is not a criminal in prison to-day in the United States 
 thSt should not instantly get his freedom by acknowl- 
 edging his crime and pleading some extenuating cir- 
 cumstance. Our ideas about Ireland have been all 
 wrong, it seems. Seven hundred years ago the exi- 
 gencies of the time demanded the foundation of a 
 strong British Empire ; in order to do this, Ireland 
 had to be conquered, and Ireland was conquered. 
 Since that time the one ruling idea in the English 
 mind has been to do all the good that they could for 
 the Irish. Their legislation and their action has not 
 always been tender, but it has been always beneficent. 
 They sometimes were severe, but they were severe to 
 us for our own good ; and the difficulty of England 
 has been that the Irish, during these long hundreds 
 
The Norman Invasion, 1 1 
 
 of years, never understood their own interests, or 
 knew what was for their own advantage. Now, the 
 American mind is enlightened, and henceforth no 
 Irishman must complain of the past; in this new light 
 in which Mr. Froude puts it before us. Now, the 
 amiable gentleman tells us that what has been our 
 fate in the past, he greatly fears we must reconcile 
 ourselves to in the future. He comes to tells us his 
 version of the history of Ireland, and he also comes to 
 solve Ireland's difficulty, and to lead us out of all the 
 miseries that have been our lot for hundreds of years. 
 When he came many persons questioned what was 
 the motive or the reason of his coming? I have heard 
 people speaking all around me, and assigning to the 
 learned gentleman this motive or that. Some people 
 said he was an emissary of the English Government ; 
 that they sent him here because they were beginning 
 to be afraid of the rising power of Ireland in this great 
 nation ; that they saw here eight millions of Irishmen 
 by birth, and perhaps fourteen millions by descent ; 
 and that they knew enough of the Irish to realize that 
 the Almighty God blessed them always with an ex- 
 traordinary power, not only to preserve themselves, 
 but to spread themselves, until, in a few years, not 
 fourteen, but fifty millions of descendants of Irish 
 blood and of Irish race will be in this land. ^ Ac- 
 cording to those who thus surmise, England wants to 
 check the sympathy of the American people for their 
 Irish fellow-citizens, and it was considered that the 
 best way to effect this was to send a learned man with 
 
1 2 Lecture L 
 
 a plausible story to this country — a man with a singu- 
 lar power of viewing facts in the light in which he 
 wishes to view them and put them before others ; a 
 man with the extraordinary faculty of so mixing up 
 these facts, that many simple-minded people will look 
 upon them, as he puts them before them, as true, and 
 whose mission it was to alienate the mind of America 
 from Ireland to-day, by showing what an impractica- 
 ble, obstinate, accursed race we are. 
 
 Others, again, surmised that the learned gentleman 
 came for another purpose ; they said : *' England is 
 in the hour of her weakness ; she is tottering fast and 
 visibly to her ruin ; the disruption of that old empire is 
 evidently approaching ; she is to-day cut off, without an 
 ally in Europe. Her army a cipher ; her fleet — accord- 
 ing to Mr. Reade, a great authority on this question — 
 nothing to be compared to the rival fleet of the great 
 Russian power now growing up. When France was 
 paralyzed by her late defeat, England lost her best ally. 
 The three emperors, in their meeting the other day, 
 contemptuously ignored her, and they settled the af- 
 fairs of the world, without as much as mentioning the 
 name of that kingdom which was once so powerful. 
 Her resources of coal and iron are failing ; her people 
 are discontented, and she is showing every sign of de- 
 cay.'* ^ Thus did some people argue that England was 
 anxious for an American alliance, for they said, '' What 
 would be more natural than that the old, tottering em- 
 pire should seek to lean on the strong, mighty, vigor- 
 ous young arm of America?*' and Mr. Froude's mis- 
 
The Norman Invasion. 13 
 
 sion, according to these persons, seemed intended to 
 prepare the way for such alliance. 
 
 I have heard others say that the gentleman came 
 over to this country on the invitation of a little clique 
 of sectarian bigots. Men who, feeling that the night 
 of religious bigotry and sectarian bitterness is fast 
 coming to a close before the increasing light of Ameri- 
 can intelligence and education, would fain prolong the 
 darkness for an hour or two, by whatever help Mr. 
 Froude could lend them. 
 
 But I protest to you, gentlemen, here to-night, that 
 I have heard all these motives assigned to this learned 
 man, without giving them the least attention. I be- 
 lieve Mr. Froude's motives to be simple, straightfor- 
 ward, honorable, and patriotic. I am willing to give 
 him credit for the highest motives, and I consider 
 him perfectly incapable of lending himself to any 
 base or sordid proceedings, from a base or sordid 
 motive. But, as the learned gentleman's motives 
 have been so freely canvassed and criticised — and 
 I believe, indeed, in many cases, misinterpreted — so 
 my own motives in coming here to-night may be 
 perhaps also misinterpreted and misunderstood, un- 
 less I state them clearly and plainly. As he 
 has been said to come as an emissary of the English 
 Government, so I may be said, perhaps, to appear as 
 an emissary of rebellion and revolution. As he is 
 supposed by some to have the sinister motive of 
 alienating the American mind from the Irish citizen- 
 ship of the States, so I may be suspected of endea- 
 
14 Lecture L 
 
 voring to excite religious or political hatred. Now, I 
 protest these are not my motives. I come here to- 
 night simply to defend the honor of Ireland in her 
 history. I come here to-night lest any man should 
 think that in this our day, or in any day, Ireland is 
 to be left without a son who will speak for the mother 
 that bore him. 
 
 And, first of all, I hold that Mr. Froude is unfit for 
 the task that he has undertaken, for three great 
 reasons. First, because I find in the writings of this 
 learned gentleman that he has solemnly and emphati- 
 cally declared that he despairs of ever finding a remedy 
 for Ireland, and he gives it up as a bad job. 
 Here are his words, written in one of his essays a few 
 years ago: "The present hope," he says, *^is that 
 by assiduous justice, that is, by conceding everything 
 that the Irish please to ask, we shall disarm that en- 
 mity and convince them of our good will. It may be 
 so. There are persons sanguine enough to hope that 
 the Irish will be so moderate in what they demand, 
 and the English so liberal in what they will grant, that 
 at last we shall fling ourselves into each other's arms m 
 tears of mutual forgiveness. I do not share that ex- 
 pectation. It is more likely that they will press their 
 importunities till we turn upon them and refuse to 
 yield further. There will be a struggle once more, 
 and either the emigration to America will increase in 
 volume till it has carried the entire race beyond our 
 reach, or in some shape or other they will again have 
 to be coerced into submission," 
 
The Norman Invasion. 1 5 
 
 Banish them or coerce them ! There is the true 
 Englishman speaking. My only remedy, he emphat- 
 ically says, my only hope, my only prospect of a 
 future for Ireland is, let them go to America ; have 
 done with the race altogether, and give us an Ireland 
 at last such as we have labored to make it for seven 
 hundred years, a desert and a solitude. Or, if they 
 remain at home they will have to be coerced into 
 submission. I hold that this gentleman has no right 
 to come to America to tell the American people and 
 the Irish \x\ America that he can cast the horoscope 
 of Ireland's future. He has acknowledged his ina- 
 bility and unfitness for this task m the words I have 
 just quoted. 
 
 The original sin of the Englishman in his dealings 
 with the Irish people and their history is his contempt 
 of them. The average Englishman despises the 
 Irishman, looks down upon him as a being almost in- 
 ferior in nature. This feeling may not be expressed, 
 but it lies deep though dormant in the hearts of most 
 Englishmen, even though they be unconscious of its 
 existence. * I make no distinction of English, Catho- 
 lic or Protestant. I speak from the experience of 
 intercourse, and I believe the feeling to be common 
 to all. . I know many Englishmen, amiable, generous, 
 charming characters, who would not cherish such a 
 feeling consciously, nor express it for the whole world; 
 yet I have seen it come forth from them in a thousand 
 forms, as if it were their very nature. I mention this 
 not to excite animosity or to create bad blood or 
 
1 6 Lecture L 
 
 bitter feeling ; no. I protest this is not my meaning; 
 but I mention this because I am convinced it lies at 
 the very root of this antipathy and of that hatred be- 
 tween the English and Irish, which seems to be in- 
 curable ; and I verily believe that until that feeling is 
 destroyed, you never can have cordial union between 
 these two countries ; and the only way to destroy it is 
 by raising Ireland, through justice and by home legis- 
 lation, that she may attain such a position that she 
 will enforce and command the respect of her English 
 fellow-subjects. Mr. Froude, himself, who, I am 
 sure, is incapable of any ungenerous sentiment towards 
 any man or any people, is an actual living example of 
 that feeling of contempt of which I speak. In Novem- 
 ber, 1856, this learned gentleman addressed a Scottish 
 assembly in Edinburgh ; the subject of his address was, 
 ** The Influence of the Reformation on the Scottish 
 Character." According to him, it made the Scotch 
 the finest people on the face of the earth. Originally 
 fine, they never got their last touch — that made them 
 as it were, archangels amongst men — until the holy 
 hand of John Knox was laid upon them. On that 
 occasion the learned gentleman introduced himself to 
 his Scottish audience in the following words : *' I have 
 undertaken," he says, **to speak this evening on the 
 effects of the Reformation in Scotland, and I consider 
 myself a very bold person to have come here on any 
 such undertaking ; in the first place, the subject is one 
 with which it is presumptuous for a stranger to med- 
 dle. Great national movements can only be under- 
 
The Norman Invasion. 1 7 
 
 stood properly by the people whose disposition they 
 represent. We say ourselves about our own history, 
 that Englishmen only can properly comprehend it. It 
 is the same with every considerable nation. They 
 work out their own political and spiritual lives through 
 tempers, humors, and passions peculiar to themselves, 
 and the same disposition which produces the result is 
 required to interpret it afterwards." Did the learned 
 gentleman offer any such apology for entering so 
 boldly upon the discussion of Irish affairs? Oh no; 
 there was no apology necessary ; he was only going to 
 speak of the "mere Irish." There was no word to 
 express his own fear that perhaps he did not under- 
 stand the Irish character, or the subject upon which he 
 was about to treat ; there was no apology to the Irish 
 in America — the supposed fourteen millions — when he 
 so boldly takes up their history, endeavoring to hold 
 them up as a licentious, immoral, irreligious, conten- 
 tions, obstinate, unmanageable race ; not at all. It was 
 not necessary; they were only Irish. If they were 
 Scotch, then the learned gentleman would have come 
 with a thousand apologies for his own presumption in 
 venturing to approach such a delicate subject as the 
 delineation of the Scottish character, or anything con- 
 nected with it. 
 
 What, on the other hand, is his treatment of the 
 Irish ? I have, in this book before me, words that 
 came from his pen, and I protest as I read them I felt 
 every drop of my blood boil in my veins. He com- 
 pares us, in this essay, to a pack of hounds. He vir- 
 
1 8 Lecture!. 
 
 tually says : " To deliver Ireland, to give Ireland any 
 meed of freedom, would be the same as when a gentle- 
 man, addressing his hounds, said, ' I give you your 
 freedom ; now go out to act for yourselves.' ** The 
 pack, it is needless to say, after worrying all the sheep 
 in the neighborhood, ended by tearing each other to 
 pieces. 
 
 Now, we Irish are naturally a proud people. The 
 antiquity of our race, the purity of our blood, pre- 
 served through the ancient form of government by 
 clans or families, the fact that serfdom never existed 
 in any form in Ireland, the consciousness of intel- 
 lectual gifts and power, the strange imaginativeness 
 with which we are endowed, our romantic, though 
 unfortunate history, so full of disaster yet so full of 
 glory ; all these, and other causes, have made us per- 
 haps the proudest people on the earth. Now, we 
 all know that a proud people are only made the more 
 sensitive by misfortune, and that they will brook 
 actual injury and accept the fiercest hatred rather 
 than submit to be despised or treated with contempt. 
 This strong natural pride of the Irish has never been 
 considered for a moment by England's statesmen in 
 dealing with the Irish people, nor by her writers in 
 describing them. And yet, there it lies, deeply seated 
 in the Irish character, and the man who ignores it will 
 never be able to understand the philosophy of Irish 
 history. 
 
 But if the learned historian be so far unfitted by his 
 nationality for dealing with Irish subjects, still more 
 
Tlie Norman Invasion. 19 
 
 is he rendered unfit for this work by his religious 
 views and opinions. Every calm and unprejudiced 
 mind that studies the history of Ireland must at once 
 perceive that this people's Catholic faith and religion 
 has been for the last three hundred years the main- 
 spring of their national life and action. Ireland's 
 Catholicity has been the source of her bitterest sor- 
 rows and highest joys. The Catholic faith may have 
 sat lightly on other peoples — in Ireland it entered into 
 the very heart and soul of the nation. Elsewhere 
 it may have been an intellectual conviction — in Ire- 
 land it was an absorbing passion. In other lands we 
 may regard it as a hallowed tradition — in Ireland it 
 was a personal as well as national divine power and 
 influence, before which all other considerations were 
 to yield, to which all interests, even life itself, were 
 to be sacrificed. First in the nation's heart and love, 
 the Catholic faith was our all in all. That man alone 
 can understand the feelings, the genius, the character, 
 the history of Ireland and of her people, who knows, 
 values, and appreciates this religion of theirs; who 
 understands the strong hold which it can take of a 
 man or a people, and the extraordinary power with 
 which it can shape character, influence policy, and 
 determine the color and the purposes of life. 
 
 Now, how does Mr. Froude view this great and 
 mighty secret of Irish life and action ? He dismisses 
 the subject with a few contemptuous words. He says 
 it is " a matter of which one knows as much as another, 
 and all of us know nothing." 
 
20 Lecture L 
 
 It is not, however, contempt only he feels for Ire- 
 land's religion ; it is the deepest detestation and 
 hatred/ In his mind the Catholic Church and re- 
 ligion is associated with all that is most monstrous 
 and vile, and when he comes to treat of anything 
 or any people connected with that religion he is 
 unreliable — no longer to be trusted. He cannot 
 speak the truth, because he can no longer see it. He 
 is blind, not only in mental perception, but even in 
 conscience. He no longer hesitates to say and do 
 things which all men pronounce unfair, dishonorable, 
 and insulting to our common sense. The very gen- 
 tlemen who rallied round him and received him in 
 New York, told him plainly enough how little they 
 relied on his word as an historian, whenever he had 
 a cause to plead or a special theory to work out. He 
 undertook to vindicate Queen Elizabeth and to black- 
 en Mary, Queen of Scots. In doing this he has been 
 convicted of what surely is a crime in any one pretend- 
 ing to write history, namely, giving his own conclu- 
 sions and words as if they were quotations from an- 
 cient historians or authentic records. Mr. Froude, 
 writes Mr. Meline, has never grasped the meaning 
 of inverted commas. 
 
 His hero is Henry VIIL, and in order to justify 
 this monster, he converts his known vices into vir- 
 tues, his rapacity is only zeal for pure doctrine, his 
 lust a chaste anxiety for the public good. One or 
 two facts as related by him will settle the question of 
 his veracity as an historian. 
 
The Norman Invasion, 21 
 
 One fact will show you how this gentleman treats 
 history. When King Henry VIII. declared war 
 against the Church, and when all England was con- 
 vulsed by his tyranny — one day hanging a Catholic be- 
 cause he would not deny the supremacy of the Pope, 
 the next day hanging a Protestant because he denied 
 the Real Presence — anybody that differed from Henry 
 was sure to be sent to the scaffold. It was a sure and 
 expeditious way of silencing all argument. 
 
 During this time, when the monasteries were begin- 
 ning to be pillaged, the Catholic clergy of England, 
 especially those who remained faithful to the Pope, 
 were most odious to the tyrant ; and such was the slav- 
 ish acquiescence of the English people that they began 
 to hate their clergy in order to please their king. 
 Well, at this time, a certain man whose name was 
 Hunn was lodged a prisoner in the Tower, and was 
 found hanged by the neck in his cell. There was a 
 coroner^s inquest held upon him, and the twelve ruf- 
 fians — I can call them nothing else — in order to express 
 their hatred for the Church, and to please the powers 
 that were, found a verdict against the chancellor of 
 the Bishop of London, a most excellent priest, whom 
 everybody knew to be such. When the bishop heard 
 of this verdict, he applied to the prime minister to 
 have the verdict quashed. He brought the matter be- 
 fore the House of Lords, in order that the character 
 of his chancellor might be fully vindicated. The 
 king's attorney-general took cognizance of it by a 
 solemn decree, and the verdict of the coroner's inquest 
 
22 Lecture L 
 
 was set aside, and the twelve men declared to be 
 twelve perjurers. Now, listen to Mr. Froude's version 
 of that story. He says : The clergy of the time were 
 reduced to such a dreadful state that actually a coro- 
 ner's inquest returned a verdict of willful murder against 
 the chancellor of the Bishop of London, and the bishop 
 was obliged to apply to Cardinal Wolsey to have a 
 special jury to try him ; because, if he took any ordina- 
 ry jury in London, they would have found him guilty 
 — leaving the reader under the impression that this 
 priest, this chancellor, was a monster of iniquity, and 
 the priests of the time were as bad as he ; leaving the 
 impression that this man was guilty of the murder, who 
 was as innocent as Abel, and hinting that, if put on trial 
 before twelve of his countrymen, they would have 
 found him guilty on the evidence. This is the version 
 he puts upon it — he knowing the facts as well as I 
 know them. 
 
 This, then, is the manner of man with whom we have 
 to deal. He comes to ask America to indorse by her 
 verdict England's treatment of Ireland. He acknowl- 
 edges that England found us free, and enslaved us, and 
 he asks the people of America to say before the world 
 that England was right. He confesses that the land 
 of Ireland was by right and just title the property and 
 possession of the Celt, and that England robbed us of 
 that land by war and spoliation, and he asks the Amer- 
 ican people to proclaim that England was right. He 
 tells us that the people of Ireland were devotedly 
 Catholic, and that England, by every unjust and cruel 
 
The Norman Invasion. 23 
 
 means, persecuted that people for their religious con- 
 victions for over two hundred years, and he calls upon 
 the great land of civil and religious freedom to approve 
 of England*s persecution/ 
 
 Well, now, my friends, we come to consider the sub- 
 ject of his first lecture. Indeed, I must say I never 
 practically experienced the difficulty of hunting a will- 
 o'-the-wisp in a marsh, until I came to follow this learn- 
 ed gentleman in his first lecture. I say nothing dis- 
 respectful of him at all, but simply say, he covered so 
 much ground, at such unequal distances, that it was 
 next to impossible to follow him. He began by re- 
 marking how General Rufus King wrote a letter about 
 certain Irishmen, and he says that the Catholics of Ire- 
 land sympathized with England, while the Protestants 
 of Ireland were breast-high for America, in the old 
 struggle between this country and Great Britain. All 
 these questions which belong to our day, I will leave 
 aside for the close of these lectures. When I come to 
 speak of the men and things of our own day, then I 
 shall have great pleasure in taking up Mr. Froude's as- 
 sertions. But, coming home to the great question of 
 Ireland, what does this gentleman tell us? Seven hun- 
 dred years ago Ireland was invaded by the Anglo-Nor- 
 mans. The first thing, apparently, that he wishes to 
 do, is to justify this invasion, and establish the princi- 
 ple that the Normans were right in coming to Ireland. 
 He began by drawing a terrible picture of the state of 
 Ireland before the invasion : They were cutting each 
 other's throats ; the whole land was covered with blood- 
 
24 Lecture L 
 
 shed ; there was in Ireland neither religion, morality, 
 or government ; therefore the Pope found it necessary 
 to send the Normans to Ireland, as you would send a 
 policeman into a saloon where the people were killing 
 one another. This is his justification — that in Ireland, 
 seven hundred years ago, just before the Norman inva- 
 sion, there was neither religion, morality, or govern- 
 ment. Let us see if he is right ? 
 
 The first proof that he gives that there was no gov- 
 ernment in Ireland is a most insidious statement. He 
 says : How could there be any government in a 
 country where every family maintained itself accord- 
 ing to its own ideas of right or wrong, acknowledg- 
 ing no authority. Now, if this be true, in one sense 
 of the word family, certainly Ireland was in a most 
 deplorable state. Every family governing itself ac- 
 cording to its own notions, and acknowledging no 
 authority ! What does he mean by the words every 
 family? Speaking to Americans in the nineteenth 
 century, it means every household in the land. We 
 speak of a family as composed of father, mother, and 
 three or four children gathered around the domestic 
 hearth; this is our idea of the family. I freely admit if 
 in this sense every family in Ireland were governed by 
 their own ideas — admitting of no authority over them — 
 he has established his case in one thing against Ireland. 
 But what is the meaning of the words every family ? 
 Irishmen who hear me to-night know it meant the 
 sept or tribe that had the same name. They owned 
 two or three counties and a large extent of territory. 
 Men of the same name were called the men of 
 
The Norman Invasion, 25 
 
 the same family. The MacMurraghs, of Leinster ; 
 the O'Tooles, of Wicklow ; the O'Byrnes, of Kildare ; 
 the O'Connors, of Connaught ; the O'Neills and the 
 O'Donnells, of Ulster. The '' family " meant a na- 
 tion. Two or three counties were governed by one 
 chieftain, and represented by one man of the sept. It 
 is quite true that each family governed itself in its 
 own independence, and acknowledged no superior. 
 There were five great families in Ireland : the O'Con- 
 nors, in Connaught ; the O'Neills, in Ulster ; the Mac- 
 Loughlins, in Meath ; the O'Briens, in Munster ; and 
 the MacMurraghs, in Leinster. And under these five 
 great heads there were minor septs and smaller fam- 
 ilies, each counting from five or six hundred to per- 
 haps a thousand fighting men, but all acknowledging 
 in the different provinces their sovereignty to these 
 five great royal houses. These five houses again 
 elected their monarch, or supreme ruler, called the 
 Ardrigh, who dwelt in Tara. Now, I ask you if *' fam- 
 ily " meant the whole sept, or tribe, or army in the 
 field defending their rights and liberties, having a reg- 
 ularly constituted authority and head, is it fair to say 
 that the country was in anarchy because every family 
 governed themselves according to their own notions ? 
 Is it fair for this gentleman to try to hoodwink and 
 deceive the American jury to which he has made his 
 appeal, by describing the Irish ^^ family," which meant 
 a sept or tribe, as a family of the nineteenth century, 
 which means only the head of the house, with the mo- 
 ther and the children ? 
 
 2 
 
26 Lecture L 
 
 Again he says : In this deplorable state the people 
 lived, like the New-Zealanders of to-day live, in under- 
 ground caves. And then he boldly says: That I 
 myself opened up in Ireland one of these underground 
 lodging-houses. Now, mark. This gentleman lived 
 in Ireland a few years ago ; and he discovered a rath in 
 Kerry. In it he found some remains of mussel-shells 
 and bones. At the time of the discovery he had the 
 most learned archaeologist in Ireland with him, and 
 they put their heads together about it. Mr. Froude 
 has written in this very book that '^ what these 
 places were intended for, or the uses they were ap- 
 plied to, baffled all conjecture ; no one could tell." 
 Then, if it baffled all conjecture, and he did not know 
 what to make of it — if it so puzzled him then that 
 nobody could declare what they were for, what right 
 has he to come out to America and say they were the 
 ordinary dwellings of the Irish people? 
 
 In order to understand the Norman invasion, I 
 must ask you to consider, first, my friends, the ancient 
 Irish Constitution which governed the land. Ireland 
 was governed by septs or families. The land, from 
 time immemorial, was in the possession of these fami- 
 lies or tribes. Each tribe elected its own chieftain, 
 and to him they paid the most devoted obedience 
 and allegiance, so that the fidelity of the Irish clans- 
 man to his chief was proverbial. The mutual inde- 
 pendence of the septs or tribes was founded on what 
 is known to-day in America as. the democratic princi- 
 ple of State Rights. The chief, during his lifetime, 
 
The Norman Invasion, 27 
 
 convoked an assembly of the tribe again, and they 
 elected from among the princes of his family the best 
 and the strongest man to be his successor, and they 
 called him the Tanist. The object of this was that the 
 successor of the king might be known, and that, at the 
 king's or the prince's death, there might be no riot 
 or bloodshed, or contention for the right of succession 
 to him. Was this not a wise law ? The elective mon- 
 archy has its advantages. The best man comes to 
 the front, because he is the choice of his fellow-men. 
 For when they come to elect a successor to their 
 prince, they choose the best man. Not of necessity the 
 king's eldest son, who might be a booby or a fool. 
 
 And so they came together and wisely selected the 
 best, the strongest, the bravest, and the wisest man, 
 and he was acknowledged to have the right to the suc- 
 cession. He was the Tanist, according to the ancient 
 law of Ireland. Well, these families, as we said, in 
 the various provinces of Ireland, owed allegiance and 
 paid it to the king of the province. He was one of the 
 five great families called in after ages the ^' ^y^ bloods." 
 Each prince had his own judge or Brehon, who ad- 
 ministered justice in the court to the people. These 
 Brehons, or judges, wqre learned men ; the historians 
 of the time tell us that they could speak Latin as 
 fluently as they could speak Irish ; they had estab- 
 lished a code of law, and in their colleges studied that 
 law, and when they had graduated in their studies, 
 they came home to their respective septs or tribes, 
 and were established as judges or Brehons over the 
 
28 Lecture L 
 
 people. Nay, more ! Nowhere in the history of the 
 Irish do we hear of an instance where a man rebelled 
 or protested against the decision of his Brehon judge. 
 Then these five monarchs in the provinces elected an 
 Ardrigh, or high king. With him they sat in council 
 on national matters within the halls of imperial Tara. 
 There Patrick found them in the year 432, minstrels, 
 and bards, and Brehons, princes, crowned monarchs, 
 and high king ; there did he find them discussing, like 
 lords and true men, the affairs of the nation, when he 
 preached to them the faith of Jesus Christ. And, 
 while this Constitution remained, the clansmen paid 
 no rent for their land. The land of the tribe or family 
 was held in common — it was the common property of 
 all — and the Brehon or judge divided it, and gave to 
 each man what was necessary for him, with free right 
 of pasturage over the whole. They had no idea of 
 slavery or serfdom amongst them. The Irish clans- 
 man was of the same blood with his chieftain. O'Brien 
 that sat in the saddle at the head of his men was re- 
 lated to gallowglass O'Brien that was in the ranks. 
 No such thing as looking down by the chieftains upon 
 their people ; no such thing as a cowed, abject sub- 
 mission upon the part of the people to a tyranni- 
 cal chieftain. In the ranks they stood as freemen — 
 perfectly equal, one with the other. We are told 
 by Gerald Barry, the lying historian — who some- 
 times, though rarely, told the truth — that when the 
 English came to Ireland nothing astonished them 
 more than the free and bold manner in which the 
 
The Norman Invasion, 29 
 
 humblest man spoke to his chieftain, and the conde- 
 scending kindness and spirit of equality with which the 
 chieftain treated the humblest soldier in his tribe. 
 
 This was the ancient Irish Constitution, my friends. 
 And now, does this look anything like anarchy ? Can 
 it be said with truth of a land where the laws were so 
 well defined, where everything was in its proper place 
 — that there was anarchy ? Mr. Froude says, '' There 
 was anarchy there, because the chieftains were fight- 
 ing amongst themselves." So they were; but, he 
 also adds: ^' There was fighting everywhere in Europe 
 after the breaking up of the Roman Empire." Well, 
 Mr. Froude ! fighting was going on everywhere ; the 
 Saxons were fighting the Normans around them in 
 England ; and what right have you to say that Ireland, 
 beyond all other nations, was given up to anarchy, 
 because chieftain drew the sword against chieftain fre- 
 quently from time to time ?^ 
 
 So much for the question of government. Now, for 
 the question of religion. The Catholic religion flour- 
 ished in Ireland for six hundred years and more before 
 the Anglo-Normans invaded her coasts. For the first 
 three hundred years, that religion was the glory of the 
 world and the pride of God's holy Church. Ireland for 
 these three hundred years was the island mother-home 
 of saints and of scholars. Men came from every country 
 in the then known world to light the lamps of knowledge 
 and of sanctity at the sacred fire upon the altars of Ire- 
 land. Then came the Danes, and for three hundred 
 years our people were harassed by incessant war. The 
 
30 Lecture L 
 
 Danes, as Mr. Froude remarks, apparently with a great 
 deal of approval, had no respect for Christ or for relig- 
 ion, and the first thing they did was to set fire to the 
 churches and monasteries. The nuns and holy monks 
 were scattered, and the people left without instruc- 
 tion. In time of war men don't have much time to 
 think of religion or things of peace. And for three 
 hundred years Ireland was subject to the invasions 
 of the Danes. On Good Friday morning, in the 
 year 1014, Brian Boroihme defeated the Danes at 
 Clontarf, but it was not until the 23d of August, 1103, 
 in the twelfth century, that the Danes were driven 
 out of the land by the defeat of Magnus, their king, 
 at Lough Strangford, in the north of Ireland. The con- 
 sequence of these Danish wars w^as that the Catholic 
 religion, though it remained in all its vital strength, in 
 all the purity of its faith amongst the Irish people, yet it 
 remained sadly shorn of that sanctity which adorned it 
 for the first three hundred years of Irish Christianity. 
 Vices sprang up amongst the people, for they were ac- 
 customed to war, war, night and day, for three centu- 
 ries. Where is the people on the face of the earth that 
 would not be utterly demoralized by fifty years of war, 
 much less by three hundred ? ** The Wars of the Roses " 
 in England did not last more than thirty years, and 
 they left the English people so demoralized that al- 
 most without a struggle they changed their religion 
 at the dictates of the blood-thirsty and licentious 
 tyrant, Henry VIII.* No sooner was the Dane gone 
 than the Irish people summoned their bishops and 
 
The Norman Invasion, 31 
 
 their priests to council, and we find almost every year 
 after the final expulsion of the Danes a council held. 
 Here gathered the bishops, priests, the leaders and 
 the chieftains of the land — the heads of the great 
 septs or families. There they made those laws by 
 which they endeavored to repair all the evils of the , 
 Danish invasion. Strict laws of Christian morality 
 were enforced, and again and again we find these 
 councils assembled to receive a Papal Legate — Car- 
 dinal Paparo, in the year 1164, four years before the 
 Norman invasion. They invited the Papal Legate to 
 their councils, and we find the Irish people every year 
 before the Norman invasion obeying the laws of these 
 councils without a murmur. We find councils of 
 Irish bishops assembled, supported by the sword and 
 power of the chieftains, with the Pope*s Legate, who 
 was received into Ireland with open arms when- 
 ever his master sent him, and without let or hindrance. 
 When he arrived he was surrounded with all the 
 devotion and chivalrous affection which the Irish 
 have always paid to the representatives of their re- 
 ligion in the country. And, my friends, it is 
 worth our while to see what was the consequence 
 of all these councils — what was the result of this 
 great religious revival which was taking place 
 in Ireland during the few years that elapsed between 
 the last Danish invasion and the invasion of the Nor- 
 mans. We find three Irish saints reigning together in 
 the church. We find St. Malachi, one of the greatest 
 saints, Primate of Armagh. We find him succeeded 
 
32 Lecture 1. 
 
 by St. Celsus, and again by Gregorius, whose name is 
 a name high up in the martyrology of the time. We 
 find in Dublin St. Laurence O'Toole of glorious mem- 
 ory. We find Felix and Christian, Bishops of Lis- 
 more ; Catholicus, of Down ; Augustine, of Water- 
 ford ; every man of them famed not only in Ireland 
 but throughout the whole Church of God for the great- 
 ness of their learning and for the brightness of their 
 sanctity. We find at the same time Irish monks, fa- 
 mous for their learning as men of their day, and as fa- 
 mous for their sanctity. In the great Irish Benedictine 
 monastery of Ratisbon, we find Dionysius, Isaac, Ger- 
 vase, Conrad, Marianus, Christian, and Gregory. 
 Maurus and twelve other Irish monks in the monastery 
 of Maniurgghen. Macurius with twelve Irish com- 
 panions at Wurzburg ; all of them men celebrated for 
 their holiness and learning. We find, moreover, that 
 the very year before the Normans arrived in Ireland, 
 in 1168, a great council was held at Athboy, thirteen 
 thousand Irishmen representing the nation ; thirteen 
 thousand warriors on horseback attended the council 
 of the bishops and priests, with their chiefs, to take 
 the law they made from them, and hear whatever the 
 Church commanded them to obey. What was the re- 
 sult of all this ? Ah ! my friends, I am not speaking 
 from any prejudiced point of view. It has been said 
 ** that if Mr. Froude gives the history of Ireland from 
 an outside view, of course Father Burke would have 
 to give it from an inside view.'* Now, I am not giving 
 it from an inside view. I am only quoting English 
 
The Norman Invasion, 33 
 
 authorities. I find, in this very interval between the 
 Danish and Saxon invasions, Lanfranc, Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, writing to O'Brien, King of Munster, con- 
 gratulating him on the religious spirit of his people. 
 I find St. Anselm, one of the greatest saints that ever 
 lived, and Archbishop of Canterbury under William 
 Rufus, writing to the King of Munster; ** I give 
 thanks to God," he says, *^ for the many good things 
 we hear of your Highness, and especially for the pro- 
 found peace which the subjects of your realm enjoy. 
 All good men who hear this give thanks to God and 
 pray that He may grant you length of days."* The 
 man that wrote that, perhaps, was thinking while he 
 was writing of the awful anarchy, impiety, and dark- 
 ness of the most dense and terrible kind which cover- 
 ed his own land of England in the reign of the Red 
 King, William Rufus. And yet we are told indeed by 
 Mr. Froude — a good judge he seems to be of religion, 
 for he says in one of his lectures : ^* Religion is a 
 thing of which one man knows as much as another, 
 and none of us know anything at all *' — that the Irish 
 were without religion, at the very time when the Irish 
 Church was forming itself into the model of sanctity 
 which it was at the time of the Danish invasion, when 
 Roderic O'Connor, King of Connaught, was acknowl- 
 edged by every prince and chieftain in the land to be 
 the high king or Ardrigh. Now, as far as regards 
 what he says : ** That Ireland was without morality," 
 I have but little to say. I will answer this by one fact. 
 
 A King of Ireland stole another man's wife. His name, 
 
 2^ 
 
34 Lecture L 
 
 accursed ! was Dermot MacMurragh, King of Leinster. 
 Every chieftain in Ireland, every man rose up, and 
 banished him from Irish soil as unworthy to live on it. 
 If these were the immoral people ; if these were the 
 bestial, incestuous, depraved race which they are de- 
 scribed by leading Norman authorities, may I ask you 
 might not King Dermot turn round and say : " Why 
 are you making war upon me ; is it not the order of 
 the day? Have I not as good a right to be faithless 
 as anybody else? " Now comes Mr. Froude and says, 
 ** The Normans were sent to Ireland to teach the Ten 
 Commandments to the Irish." In the language of 
 Shakespeare I would say — '' Oh ! Jew, I thank thee 
 for that word." In these Ten Commandments the three 
 most important are, in their relation to human society, 
 *'Thou shalt not steal ; thou shalt not kill ; thou shalt 
 not covet thy neighbor's wife." The Normans, even 
 in Mr. Froude's view, had no right or title under 
 Heaven to one square inch of the soil of Ireland. 
 They came to take what was not their own, what they 
 had no right, no title to. And they came as robbers 
 and thieves to teach the Ten Commandments to the 
 Irish people, amongst them the commandment 
 ** Thou shalt not steal." Henry landed in Ireland in 
 1 171. He was after murdering the holy Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, St. Thomas a Becket. They scattered 
 his brains before the foot of the altar, before the Bles- 
 sed Sacrament, at the vesper hour. The blood of the 
 saint and martyr was upon his hands when he came to 
 Ireland to teach the Irish, '' Thou shalt not kill." 
 
The Norman Invasion, 35 
 
 What was the occasion of their coming ? When the 
 adulterer was driven from the sacred soil of Erin, as 
 one unworthy to profane it by his tread, he went over 
 to Henry and procured from him a letter permitting 
 any of his subjects that chose to embark for Ireland 
 to do so, and there to reinstate the adulterous tyrant, 
 King Dermot, in his kingdom. They came then as 
 protectors and helpers of adultery to teach the Irish 
 people, "■ Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." 
 
 Mr. Froude tells us they were right — that they were 
 the apostles of purity, honesty, and clemency, and Mr. 
 Froude ^^ is an honorable man." Ah ! but he says, 
 *' remember, my good Dominican friend, that if they 
 came to Ireland, they came because the Pope sent 
 them." Henry, in the year 1175, produced a letter 
 which he said he received from Pope Adrian IV., 
 which commissioned him to go to Ireland, and permit- 
 ted him there, according to the terms of the letter, to 
 do whatever he thought right and fit to promote the 
 glory of God and the good of the people. The date 
 that was on the letter was 1155, consequently it was 
 twenty years old. During the twenty years nobody 
 ever heard of that letter except Henry, who had it in 
 his pocket, and an old man called John of Salisbury, 
 that wrote how he went to Rome and procured the 
 letter in a huggermugger way from the Pope. Now, 
 I solemnly and fearlessly assert that the letter was a 
 forgery, and that Pope Adrian never issued any such 
 document. This letter or brief comes down to us on 
 the authority of John of Salisbury, who tells us in a 
 
$6 Lecture I. 
 
 work of his called '* Metalogicus," that being in Rome 
 in 1 155, he obtained from Pope Adrian the investiture 
 of Ireland for Henry II. This statement is made 
 in the last chapter of the book. It has no bear- 
 ing on the subject matter, or context of the work, and 
 at first sight looks like a kind of after-thought, let in ♦• 
 apropos of nothing. The ^* Metalogicus " must have 
 been written about the year 1159, for the author tells 
 us that he had just received the news of Adrian's 
 death, which took place in that year. Moreover, he 
 states that Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, was 
 still living, and Theobald died in 1161. If, then, the 
 assertion in question was in the Metalogicus of John 
 of Salisbury, it must have seen the light in 11 59 or 
 1 160. But all historians acknowledge without a shad- 
 ow of doubt that Adrian's letter was never published 
 nor heard of until 1174 or 1175, therefore, I conclude 
 that it is a forged document, let into a subsequent 
 edition of the Metalogicus when John of Salisbury 
 was dead and gone. • 
 
 Moreover, the brief of Adrian, as we find in the 
 ancient manuscripts, was dated from Rome, but Pope 
 Adrian was not in Rome at all during that time. Im- 
 mediately after his consecration he had to fly from 
 Rome, on account of popular commotions excited and 
 led by the celebrated Arnold of Brescia ; and John of 
 Salisbury himself attests that he found the Pope at 
 Benevento, where he stayed with him for three months. 
 How comes it, therefore, that Adrian's brief should 
 date from Rome when the Pope was not there at all ? 
 
The Norman Invasion, 37 ^ 
 
 How comes it that John of Salisbury, in his book 
 called ^^ Polycratius," in which he deals ex professo 
 with his visit to Adrian, does not mention one word 
 about the celebrated brief? 
 
 But, replies Mr. Froude, we have another document 
 which places the authenticity of Adrian's letter beyond 
 all question. We have the bull of Pope Alexan- 
 der III., acknowledging and confirming Adrian's 
 grant ? 
 
 This opens the question — is the bull of Alexander 
 genuine. We have it on the authority of Gerald Bar- 
 ry, commonly called Giraldus Cambrensis, one of the 
 greatest liars that ever put pen to paper, as all stu- 
 dents of history well know. Pope Alexander wrote 
 three letters in 1172, which are certainly authentic. 
 One was addressed to the Irish bishops, another to 
 the Irish chieftains, and a third to King Henry him- 
 self. These three letters treat entirely and exclusive- 
 ly, of the invasion of Ireland, and nowhere do we 
 find one word about Adrian's concession of the island. 
 The only title they recognize in Henr}^ is, ^^ that mon- 
 arch's power and the submission of the Irish chief- 
 tains." At the time these letters were written no man 
 in Ireland had ever heard of Adrian's grant, for, if it 
 existed, Henry up to this time had kept it carefully 
 concealed. These three genuine letters were dated 
 from Tusculum and not from Rome. The bull on 
 which Mr. Froude relies is a fourth document of the 
 same year, 1172, and it is didX^A from Rome, Now, 
 Pope Alexander was not in Rome in 1172, nor for six 
 
38 Lecture L 
 
 years later, and any papal document dated from 
 Rome in that year is a forgery. 
 
 Giraldus inserted the bull of Pope Alexander in his 
 book on the conquest of Ireland, "• Expugnatio Hiber- 
 nica ; " but did he believe in it himself? We have 
 another work of his written some years after, and en- 
 titled ^' De Principis Instructione,'* in which, speaking 
 of Alexander's bull, he says, "' Some assert or imagine 
 that this bull was obtained from the Pope ; but others 
 deny that it was ever obtained from the Pontiff." 
 Amongst the "' others " were the whole Irish priest- 
 hood and people, who very properly have always looked 
 upon these two supposed papal documents as auda- 
 cious Norman forgeries. ^^ It will be well also," ob- 
 serves the learned Bishop of Ossory, ** whilst forming 
 our judgment regarding this supposed bull of Adrian, 
 to hold in mind the disturbed state of society, espe- 
 cially in Italy, at the time to which it refers. At the 
 present day it would be no easy matter indeed for 
 such a forgery to survive more than a few weeks. But 
 at the close of the twelfth century it was far otherwise. 
 Owing to the constant revolutions and disturbances 
 that then prevailed, the Pontiff was oftentimes obliged 
 to fly from city to city ; frequently his papers were 
 seized and burned, and he himself detained as a hos- 
 tage or prisoner by his enemies. Hence it is that 
 several forged bulls, examples of which are given in 
 * Cambrensis Eversus,' date from these times. More 
 than one of the grants made to the Norman families 
 are now believed to rest on such forgeries ; and that 
 
The Norman Invasion. 39 
 
 the Anglo-Norman adventurers in Ireland were not 
 strangers to such deeds of darkness appears from the 
 fact that a matrix forging the Papal Seal of such 
 bulls, now preserved in the R. I. Academy, was 
 found a few years ago in the ruins of one of the ear- 
 liest Anglo-Norman monasteries, founded by De 
 Courcy." 
 
 *^The circumstances of the publication of the bull 
 by Henry were surely not calculated to disarm suspi- 
 cion. Our opponents do not even pretend that it was 
 made known in Ireland till the year 1775, and hence, 
 though publicly granted with solemn investiture, as 
 John of Salisbury's testimony would imply, and though 
 its record was deposited in the public archives of the 
 kingdom, this bull, so vital to the interests of the Irish 
 Church, should have remained dormant for twenty 
 years, unnoticed m Rome, unnoticed by Henry's court- 
 iers, still more, unnoticed by the Irish bishops, and, I 
 will add, unnoticed by the Continental sovereigns, so 
 jealous of the power and preponderance of the English 
 monarch. For such suppositions there is indeed no 
 parallel in the whole history of investitures." 
 
 But Mr. Froude will do*ubtless say you may see the 
 copy of Adrian's bull in Baronius's Annuals, copied 
 ** from a Vatican manuscript." I answer, the manu- 
 script in question is merely the history of Matthew of 
 Paris, an English monk of St. Albans. But nowhere 
 in the private archives, or among the private papers 
 of the Vatican, or in the authoritative '' Regesta," or in 
 the various indices of the pontifical letters, can a single 
 
40 Lecture L 
 
 trace be found of the supposed bulls of Adrian IV. 
 and Alexander III. 
 
 " There is only one other reflection," continues the 
 learned Bishop of Ossory, ^' with which I wish to detain 
 the reader. The condition of our country, and the re- 
 lations between Ireland and the English king, which ^ 
 are set forth in the supposed bull, are precisely those 
 of the year 1172; but it would have required more 
 than a prophetic vision to have anticipated them in 
 1 155. In 1 155 Ireland was not in a state of turmoil or 
 verging towards barbarism ; on the contrary, it was 
 rapidly progressing, and renewing its claim to religious 
 and moral pre-eminence. I will add, that Pope Adrian, 
 who had studied under Irish masters, knew well this 
 flourishing condition of our country. In 1 172, how- 
 ever, a sad change had come over our island. Four 
 years of continual warfare, and the ravages of the 
 Anglo-Norman fiUibusters, since their first landing in 
 1 168, had well nigh reduced Ireland to a state of bar- 
 barism, and the authentic letters of Alexander III., in 
 1 1 72, faithfully describe its most deplorable condition. 
 Moreover, an expedition of Henry to Ireland, which 
 would not be an invasion, and yet would merit the 
 homage of the Irish princes, was simply an impossibil- 
 ity in 1155. But owing to the special circumstances 
 of the kingdom, such in reality was the expedition of 
 Henry in U72. He set out for Ireland, not avowed- 
 ly to invade and conquer it, but to curb the insolence 
 and to punish the deeds of pillage of his own Norman 
 freebooters. Hence, during his stay in Ireland he 
 
The NQTinan Invasion, 41 
 
 fought no battle and made no conquest ; his first 
 measures of severity were directed against some of 
 the most lawless of the early Norman adven- 
 turers, and this, more than anything else, reconciled 
 the native princes to his military display. In return 
 he received from a majority of the Irish chieftains the 
 empty title of Ard-righ^ or ** Head Sovereign," which 
 did not suppose any conquest on his part, and did not 
 involve any surrender of their own hereditary rights. 
 Such a state of things could not have been imagined 
 in 1 1 55; and yet it is one which is implied in the 
 spurious bull of the much maligned Pontiff, Adrian 
 IV." 
 
 It is said Adrian gave the rescript, and did not 
 know the man he gave it to. But Alexander knew 
 him well! Henry, in 11 59 and 1166, supported the 
 anti-Popes against Alexander, and, according to Mat- 
 thew of Westminster, King Henry II. obliged every 
 one in England, from the boy of twelve years of age 
 to the old man, to renounce their allegiance to Alex- 
 ander III., and go over to the anti-Popes. Now is it 
 likely that Alexander would give him a rescript, tell- 
 ing him to go to Ireland and settle the ecclesiastical 
 matters there? Alexander himself wrote to Henry, 
 and said to him, ^^ Instead of remedying the disorders 
 caused by your predecessors, you have added prevari- 
 cation to prevarication ; you have oppressed the 
 Church, and endeavored to destroy the canons of 
 apostolical men." 
 
 Such is the man that Alexander sent to Ireland to 
 
42 Lecture I. 
 
 make the Irish good people. According to Mr. Froude, 
 the Irish never loved the Pope until the Normans 
 taught them.'" What is the fact? Until the accursed 
 Norman came to Ireland, the Papal Legate always came 
 to the land at his pleasure. No king ever obstructed 
 him ; no Irish hand was ever raised against a bishop 
 or priest of the land, or Papal Legate. After, the 
 Legate Cardinal Vivian came to England ; Henry 
 took him by the throat and made him swear that 
 when he went to Ireland he would 'do nothing against 
 the interest of the king. It was an unheard of thing 
 that archbishops and cardinals should be persecuted, 
 until the Normans taught the world how to do it, with 
 their accursed feudal system, concentrating all power 
 in the king. 
 
 Ah, bitterly did Laurence O'Toole feel it — the great, 
 heroic saint of Ireland — when he went to England on 
 his last voyage ! The moment he arrived in England, 
 the king's officers made him prisoner. The king had left 
 orders that he was never to set foot in Ireland again. 
 
 It was this man that was sent over as an apostle of 
 morality to Ireland ; he was the man accused of vio- 
 lating the betrothed wife of his own son, Richard I. ; 
 a man whose crimes will not bear repetition ; a man 
 who was believed by Europe to be possessed of the 
 devil ; a man of whom it is written ** that when he 
 got into a fit of anger, he tore off his clothes and sat 
 naked, chewing straw like a beast ! ** Furthermore, 
 is it likely that a Pope who knew him so well, who 
 suffered so much from him, would have sent him to Ire- 
 
The Norman Invasion, 43 
 
 land — the murderer of bishops, the robber of churches, 
 the destroyer of ecclesiastical liberty, and of every 
 form of liberty that came before him ? No ! I never 
 will believe that the Pope of Rome was so very short- 
 sighted, so unjust, as, by a stroke of his pen, to abolish 
 and destroy the liberties of the most faithful people 
 who ever bowed down in allegiance to him/^ 
 
 But let us suppose that Pope Adrian gave the bull. 
 I hold still it was of no account, because it was ob- 
 tained under false pretences ; for he told the Pope 
 that the Irish people were in a state of miserable igno- 
 rance, which did not exist. Thus, he told a lie, and, 
 according to the Roman law, a papal rescript ob- 
 tained on a lie is null and void. Again, when 
 Henry told the Pope when he gave him that rescript 
 and power to go to Ireland, that he would fix every- 
 thing right, and do everything for the glory of God 
 and the good of the people, he had no intention of 
 doing it and never did it. Consequently, the rescript 
 was null and void. 
 
 But suppose the rescript was valid. Well, my 
 friends, what power did it give Henry ? Did it give 
 him the land of Ireland ? Not a bit of it. Any one 
 who attentively weighs the words of the document 
 will see at once that it prescinds from all title of con- 
 quest, whilst at the same time it makes no gift or 
 transfer of dominion to Henry II. As far as this 
 letter of Adrian is concerned, the visit of Henry 
 to our island might be the enterprise of a friendly 
 monarch, who, at the invitation of a distracted state, 
 
44 Lecture L 
 
 would seek by his presence to restore peace, and to 
 uphold the observance of the laws. Thus, those fool- 
 ish theories must at once be set aside, which rest on 
 the groundless supposition that Pope Adrian author- 
 ized the invasion and plunder of our people by the 
 Anglo-Norman adventurers. At most, all he said he « 
 wished of the Irish chieftains was to acknowledge 
 Henry's high sovereignty over the land. Now, you 
 must know that in these early middle ages there were 
 two kinds of sovereignty. There was a sovereignty 
 that had the people and the land. They were the 
 king's ; he governed these as the kings and emperors do 
 in Europe to-day. Besides this real sovereignty there 
 was what was called a ^^ haute stczerainetP' or high do- 
 minion, which required the homage only of the chief- 
 tains of the land, but which left them in perfect liberty, 
 and in perfect independence. Henry demanded this 
 nominal tribute of their homage, and nothing more. 
 This was all evidently that the Pope of Rome in- 
 tended in Ireland, if he permitted so much ; and the 
 proof of it lies here, that when Henry II. came to Ire- 
 land he did not claim of the Irish kings that they 
 should give up their sovereignty. He left Roderic 
 O'Connor King of Connaught, acknowledging him as 
 a fellow-king ; he acknowledged his royalty, and con- 
 firmed him when he demanded of him the allegiance 
 and the homage of a feudal prince — a feudal suzerain 
 — leaving him in perfect independence. 
 
 Again, let us suppose that Henry intended to conquer 
 Ireland, and bring it into slavery. Did he succeed ? 
 
The Norman Invasion, 45 
 
 Was there a conquest at all ? Nothing like it. He 
 came to Ireland ; the kings and princes of the Irish 
 people said to him : *' Well, we are willing to acknowl- 
 edge your high sovereignty. You are the lord of Ire- 
 land, but we are the owners of the land. It is simply 
 acknowledging your title as lord of Ireland, and noth- 
 ing more.'' If he intended anything more, he never 
 carried out his intention ; he was able to conquer that 
 portion which was held before by the Danes, but noth- 
 ing more. It is a fact that when the Irish had driven 
 the Danes out of Ireland at Clontarf, that, as they al- 
 ways were straightforward and generous in the hour of 
 their triumph, they permitted the Danes to remain in 
 Dublin, Wexford, Wicklow, and Waterford. The con- 
 sequence of this was that a good portion of the eastern 
 seaboard of Ireland was in the possession of the Danes. 
 The Normans came over, and were regarded by the 
 Irish as cousins to the Danes, and only took the Dan- 
 ish territory — nothing more — and the Irish seemed will- 
 ing to share with them. Mr. Froude's second justifica- 
 tion of these most iniquitous acts is, that Ireland was a 
 prey to the Danes. He says the Danes came to the 
 land and made the people ferocious, and leaves his 
 hearers to infer that the Danish wars in Ireland were 
 only a succession of individual and ferocious contests 
 between tribe and tribe, and between man and man, 
 whereas they were a magnificent trial of strength be- 
 tween two of the greatest and bravest nations that 
 ever met foot to foot or hand to hand on a battle- 
 field. The Danes were unconquerable in every other 
 
46 Lecture L 
 
 land which they invaded ; the Celts, for three hundred 
 years, fought with them and disputed every inch of the 
 land with them, filled every valley in the land with 
 their dead bodies, and in the end drove them back into 
 the North Sea, and freed their native soil from their 
 domination. This magnificent contest is represented 
 by this historian as a mere ferocious onslaught, daily 
 renewed betwen man and man in Ireland. The Nor- 
 mans arrived and we have seen how they were receiv- 
 ed ; the Butlers and Fitzgeralds went down into Kil- 
 dare ; the De Berminghams and Burkes went down into 
 Connaught. The people offered them very little op- 
 position, gave them a portion of their lands, and wel- 
 comed them amongst them ; and they began to love 
 them as if they were their own flesh and blood. That 
 love was soon returned. But, my friends, these Nor- 
 mans, so haughty in England, despised the Saxons so 
 bitterly that their name for the Saxon was " villein " 
 or churl. They would not allow a Saxon to sit at the 
 same table with them, and never thought of inter- 
 marrying with the Saxons for many long years. The 
 proud Norman, ferocious in his passions, brave as a 
 lion, formed by his Crusades and Saracenic wars, the 
 bravest warrior of his times — this steel-clad knight dis- 
 dained the Saxon. Even one of their followers, Gerald 
 Barry, speaking of the Saxons, says : '^ I am a Welshman ; 
 who would think of comparing the Welsh with the 
 Saxon boors, the basest race on the face of the earth ? ** 
 (I am only giving his words — not sharing in his senti- 
 ments.) They fought one battle, and when the Nor- 
 
The Norman Invasion. 47 
 
 mans conquered them they consented to be slaves 
 forevermore. Who would compare them with the 
 Welsh — the Celtic race ? says this man : with the 
 brave, intellectual, and magnanimous race of the Celts. 
 Now, my friends, when these Normans went down 
 into Ireland amongst the Irish people, went out from 
 the Danish portion of the Pale, what is the first thing 
 that we see? They threw off their Norman traits, 
 forgot their Norman-French language and took the 
 Irish, took Irish wives — and were glad to get them — 
 and adopted Irish customs, until in two hundred years 
 after the Norman invasion, we find these proud de- 
 scendants of William Fitzaldem, Earl of Clanricarde, 
 changing their names, for my name of Burke was 
 changed to the upper and lower McWilliam, or 
 sons of William, in the days of Lionel, Duke of 
 Clarence, and so they called themselves by the name 
 and adopted the language and customs of the country. 
 Of the four hundred sad years that followed the 
 Norman invasion down to the accession of Henry 
 VIII. , Mr. Froude has nothing to say, except that 
 Ireland was in a constant state of anarchy and con- 
 fusion ; and it is too true. It is perfectly true. Chief- 
 tain against chieftain. It was comparative peace be- 
 fore the invasion, but when the Normans came in they 
 divided them by craft and cunning. The ancient his- 
 torian, Strabo, says: ''The Gauls always march open- 
 ly to their end, and they are therefore easily circum- 
 ; vented." So when the Normans came, and the Sax- 
 ' ens, they sowed dissensions among the people. They 
 
48 \ Lecture I. 
 
 stirred them up against each other, and the bold, hot 
 blood of the Celt was always ready to engage in con- 
 test and in war. What was the secret of that inces- 
 sant and desolating war ? There is no history more 
 painful to read than the history of the Irish people, 
 from the day that the Norman landed on their coast 
 until the day when the great issue of Protest-* 
 antism was put before the nation, and when Irish- 
 men rallied in that grand day as one man. My 
 friends, the true secret of the early and constant 
 efforts of the English to force upon Ireland the 
 establishment of the feudal system, was to rob the 
 Irish of every inch of their land and to exterminate 
 the Celtic race.^^ I lay this down as the one secret, the 
 one thread by which you may unravel the tangled 
 skein of our history for the four hundred years that 
 followed the Norman invasion. The Normans and 
 the Saxons came with the express purpose and design 
 of taking every foot of land in Ireland, and extermina- 
 ting the Celtic race. It is an awful thing to think of, 
 but we have evidence for it. First of all, Henry II., 
 whilst he made his treaties with the Irish kings, se- 
 cretly divided the whole of Ireland into ten portions, 
 and allotted each of these portions to one of his Nor- 
 man knights. In a word, he robbed the Irish people, 
 and the Irish chieftains, of every foot of land in the 
 Irish territory. It is true, the invaders were not able 
 to take possession. It is as if a master robber were 
 to divide the booty before it is taken. It is far easier 
 to assign property not yet stolen, than to put the 
 
The Norman Invasion, 49 
 
 thieves into possession of it. There were Irish hands 
 and Irish battle-blades in the way for many a long year, 
 nor has it been accomplished to this day. In order to 
 root out the Celtic race, and to destroy us, mark the 
 measures of legislation which followed. First of all, 
 my friends, whenever an Englishman was put in posses- 
 sion of an acre of land, he got the right to trespass 
 upon his Irish neighbors, and to take their land, as far 
 as he could, and they had no action in a court of law 
 to recover their land. If an Irishman brought an ac- 
 tion at law against an Englishman, for taking half of 
 his field, or for trespassing upon his land, according to 
 the law from the very beginning, that Irishman was sent 
 out of court — there was no action — the Englishman 
 was perfectly justified. Worse than this. They made 
 laws declaring that the killing of an Irishman was no 
 felony. Sir John Davis tells us how, upon a certain 
 occasion, at the assizes at Waterford, in the twenty- 
 ninth year of Edward I., a certain Thomas Butler 
 brought an action against Robert de Almain, to re- 
 cover certain goods that Robert had stolen from him. 
 The cause was brought into court. Robert acknowl- 
 edged that he had stolen the goods ; that he was a 
 thief. The defense he put in was that Edward, the 
 man he had plundered, was an Irishman. Now, my 
 friends, just think of it ! The issue that was put be- 
 fore the jury was not whether the robbery was really 
 committed, but whether Edward, the plaintiff, was an 
 Irishman, or an Englishman. Robert, the thief, was 
 obliged to give back the goods — for the jury found 
 
 3 
 
so Lecture L 
 
 that Edward was an Englishman. But if the jury- 
 found that Edward was an Irishman, he might go with- 
 out the goods — there was no action against the thief, if 
 the man aggrieved happened not to be of the thief's 
 nation. We find upon the same authority — Sir John 
 Davis — a description of a certain jail delivery at Wa- 
 terford, where a man named Robert Welsh killed an 
 Irishman, John, the son of Ivor McGilmore. He was 
 arraigned and tried for manslaughter, and he, without 
 the slightest difficulty, acknowledged it. ** Yes, I did 
 kill him," said he ; '^you cannot try me for it, however, 
 as he was only an Irishman ! " Instantly he was let out 
 of the dock, on condition — as the Irishman was in the 
 service at the time of an English master — he should 
 pay whatever he compelled him to pay for the loss 
 of his services, and the murderer might go scot-free." 
 Not only, says Sir John Davis, were the Irish 
 considered aliens, but they were considered enemies, 
 insomuch that though an Englishman might settle 
 upon an Irishman's land, there was no redress; but 
 if an Irishman wished to buy an acre of land from 
 an Englishman he could not do it. So they kept the 
 land they had and they were always adding to it by 
 plunder : they could steal without even buying more. 
 On the other hand, the Irish were forbid even to pur- 
 chase land. Though the English might take from the 
 Irish, the Irish could not, even by way of gift or pur- 
 chase, take any from the English. In every charter 
 of English liberty, as it was called, granted to an Irish- 
 man, besides the right to bring actions in the king's 
 
The Norman Invasion, 
 
 51 
 
 court, there was given an express power to him to 
 purchase lands for himself and heirs. Without this he 
 could not hold any so acquired. If any man made 
 a will, and left an acre of land to an Irishman, the 
 moment it was proved that he was an Irishman, the 
 land was forfeited to the Crown of England — even 
 if it was only left in trust to him, as we have two very 
 striking examples. We read that a certain James 
 Butler left some lands in Meath m trust for charitable 
 purposes, and he left them to his two chaplains. It 
 was proved that the two priests were Irishmen, and 
 that it was left to them in trust for charitable purposes ; 
 yet the land was forfeited because the trustees were 
 Irishmen. Later, a certain Mrs. Catharine Dowdall, a 
 pious woman, made a will, leaving some land, also for 
 charitable purposes, to her chaplain, and the land was 
 forfeited because the priest was an Irishman. 
 
 In the year 1367, Lionel, Duke of Clarence, a third 
 son of Edward III., came to Ireland, held a parlia- 
 ment in Kilkenny, and passed certain laws. You 
 will scarcely believe what I am going to tell you. 
 Some of these were as follows : If any man speaks 
 the Irish language, or keeps company with the Irish, 
 or adopts Irish customs, his lands shall be taken from 
 him and forfeited to the Crown of England. If an 
 Englishman married an Irish woman, what do you 
 think was the penalty? He was sentenced to be half 
 hanged ; to have his heart cut out before he was dead, 
 and to have his head struck off, and every right to his 
 land passed to the Crown of England. Thus, says 
 
52 Lecture L 
 
 Sir John Davis, it is evident that the constant design 
 of English legislation in Ireland was to possess the 
 Irish lands, and to extirpate and exterminate the Irish 
 people. 
 
 Now, citizens of America, Mr. Froude came here to 
 appeal to you for your verdict, and he asks you to say : 
 Was not England justified in her treatment of Ireland 
 because the Irish people would not submit? Now, 
 citizens of America, would not the Irish people be the 
 vilest dross on the face of the earth if they submitted 
 to such treatment as this ? Would they be worthy of 
 the name of men if they submitted to be robbed, plun- 
 dered, and degraded ? It is true that, in all this legis- 
 lation, we see this same spirit of contempt of which I 
 spoke in the beginning of my lecture. But remember 
 it was not Saxon churls that were thus despised, and 
 ask yourselves what race they treated with so much 
 contumely and attempted in every way to degrade 
 whilst they were ruining and robbing them. Spencer, 
 speaking of the Irish race, says : ^' The Irish are one 
 of the most ancient nations that I know of at this end 
 of the world, and come of as mighty a race as the world 
 ever brought forth." He knew of no people more val- 
 iant and more intellectual. Those who came over from 
 England were called, by their own countrymen in Ire- 
 land, Saxon hobs, or churls, while the Irish called them 
 Buddagh Sassenach, These were the men who showed, 
 in the very system by which they were governed, that 
 they could not understand the genius of freedom ; that 
 they could not understand the nature of a people who 
 
The Norman Invasion, 53 
 
 refused to be slaves. They were slaves themselves. 
 Consider the nature of the feudal system under which 
 they lived. According to the feudal system of govern- 
 ment, the King of England was lord of every inch of 
 land in England. Every foot of land in England was 
 the king's, and the nobles who had the land held it 
 from the king — held it under feudal conditions, the 
 most degrading that can be imagined. For instance, 
 if a man died and left his heir, a son or daughter, under 
 age, the heir or heiress, together with the estate, went 
 into the hands of the king. He migLt perhaps leave 
 a widow with ten children. She would have to sup- 
 port all the children herself out of her dower, but the 
 estate and the eldest son or the eldest daughter went 
 into the hands of the king. Then, during their mi- 
 nority, the king could spend the revenues or could sell 
 the castle and sell the estate without being questioned 
 by any one ; and when the son or daughter came of 
 age, he then sold them in marriage to the highest 
 bidder. We have Godfrey of Mandeville buying for 
 twenty thousand marks, from King John, the hand of 
 Isabella, Countess of Gloster. We have Isabella de 
 Linjera, another heiress, offering two hundred marks 
 to King John — for what ? — for liberty to marry who- 
 ever she liked, and not be obliged to marry the man 
 he would give her. If a widow lost her husband, the 
 moment the breath was out of him the lady and the 
 estate were in the king's or suzerain's possession, and 
 he might squander the estate or do whatever he liked 
 with it, and then he could sell the woman. We have 
 
54 Lecture L 
 
 a curious example of this. We find Alice, Countess 
 of Warwick, paying King John one thousand pounds 
 sterling in gold for leav^e to remain a widow as long as 
 she liked, and then to marry any one she liked. This 
 was the slavery called the feudal system, of which Mr. 
 Froude is so proud, and of which he says : It lay at the 
 root of most that is noble and good in Europe. The 
 Irish could not understand it — small blame to them. 
 But when the Irish people found that they were to be 
 hunted down like wolves — found their lands were to 
 be taken from them and that there was no redress, over 
 and over again the Irish people sent up petitions to 
 the King of England to give them the benefit of the 
 English law, and they would be amenable to it ; but 
 they were denied and told that they should remain as 
 they were, that is to say, England was determined to 
 extirpate them, and get every foot of Irish soil. This 
 is the one leading idea or principle which animated 
 England in her treatment of Ireland throughout those 
 four hundred years, and it is the only clue you can 
 find to that turmoil, and misery, and constant fighting 
 which was going on in Ireland during that time. Sir 
 James Cusack, the English Commissioner sent over by 
 Henry VIII., wrote to his Majesty these quaint words : 
 " The Irish be of opinion amongst themselves that the 
 English wish to get all their lands, and to root them 
 out completely.'* He just struck the nail on the head. 
 Mr. Froude himself acknowledges that the land ques- 
 tion lies at the root of the whole business. Nay, 
 more, the feudal system would have handed over every 
 
The Norman Invasion, 55 
 
 inch of land in Ireland to the Norman king and his 
 Norman nobles, and the O'Briens, the O'Tooles, the 
 O'Donnells and the O'Connors were of more ancient 
 and better blood than that of William, the bastard 
 Norman. 
 
 The Saxon might submit to feudal law and be crush- 
 ed into a slave, a clod of the earth — the Celt never 
 could. England's great mistake — m my soul I am con- 
 vinced that the great mistake, of all others the great- 
 est — lay in this, that the English people never realized 
 the fact that in dealing with the Irish they had to deal 
 with the proudest race upon the face of the earth. 
 During these wars the Norman earls, the Ormonds, the 
 Desmonds, the Geraldines, the De Burghes, were at 
 the head and front of every rebellion. The English 
 complained of them, and said they were worse than 
 the Irish rebels ; that they were constantly stirring up 
 disorders. Do you know the reason why? Because 
 they, as Normans, were under the feudal laws, and 
 therefore the king's sheriff would come down on them 
 at every turn with fines and forfeitures of the land 
 held from the king. So, by keeping the country in 
 disorder, they were always able to elude the sheriffs, 
 and they preferred the Irish freedom to the English 
 feudalism — therefore, they fomented and kept up these 
 discords. It was the boast of my kinsmen of Clan- 
 ricarde that, with the blessing of God, they would 
 never allow a king's writ to run in Connaught. Dealing 
 with this period of our history, Mr. Froude says that 
 the Irish chieftains and their septs or tribes were doing 
 
$6 Lecture L 
 
 this or that mischief, the Geraldines, the Desmonds, 
 and the Ormonds. I say in reply to this, that the Ger- 
 aldines and the Ormonds were not the Irish people, so 
 don't father their acts upon the Irish ; the Irish chief- 
 tains have enough to answer for. During these four 
 hundred years, I protest to you that in this most ♦♦ 
 melancholy period of our sad history I have found but 
 two cases, two instances, that cheer me ; and both 
 were the action of native Irish chieftains. In one we 
 find that in 1339, Turlough O'Connor put away his law- 
 ful wife Dervail, daughter of Hugh O'Donnell of Tyr- 
 connel, and took to him the daughter of Turlough 
 O'Brien. With the spirit of their heroic ancestors, 
 the Irish chieftains of Connaught came together, de- 
 posed him, and drove him out of the place in 1342, 
 after three years' incessant warfare. Later on we find 
 another chieftain, Brian McMahon, who induced Sorley 
 McDonnell, chief of the Hebrides, to put away his 
 lawful wife and marry a daughter of his own. The 
 following year they fell out, and McMahon drowned 
 his own son-in-law. The chiefs, O'Donnell and 
 O'Neill, came together with their forces and deposed 
 McMahon, in the cause of virtue, honor, and woman- 
 hood. I have looked in vain through these four hun- 
 dred years for one single trait of generosity or of the 
 assertion of virtue among the Anglo-Norman chiefs, 
 and the dark picture is only relieved by these two 
 gleams of Irish patriotism and Irish zeal in the cause 
 of virtue, honor, and purity. 
 
 Now, my friends, Mr. Froude opened another ques- 
 
The Norman Invasion, 57 
 
 tlon in his first lecture. All this time, while the Eng- 
 lish monarchs were engaged in trying to subjugate 
 Scotland and subdue their French provinces, the Irish 
 were rapidly gaining ground, coming in and entering 
 the Pale year by year ; the English power in Ireland 
 was in danger of annihilation, and the only thing that 
 saved it was the love of the Irish for their own inde- 
 pendent way of fighting, which, though favorable 
 to freedom, was hostile to national unity. He says, 
 speaking of that time. Would it not have been bet- 
 ter to have allowed the Irish chieftains to govern their 
 own people, and give the Irish their freedom ? And he 
 answers. Freedom to whom ? — freedom to the bad, to 
 the violent? It is no freedom. I deny that the 
 Irish chieftains, with all their faults, were, as a class, 
 bad men or violent men. I deny that they were en- 
 gaged, as Mr. Froude says, in cutting their people's 
 throats, that they were a people who would never be 
 satisfied. Mr. Froude tells us emphatically and sig- 
 nificantly, that *^ the Irish people were satisfied with 
 their chieftains," but people are not satisfied under a 
 system where their throats are being cut. The Irish 
 chieftains were the bane of Ireland by their divisions ; 
 the Irish chieftains were the ruin of their country by 
 their want of union and want of generous acquiescence 
 to some great and noble head that would save them 
 by uniting them. The Irish chieftains, even in the 
 days of the heroic Edward Bruce, did not rally around 
 him as they ought. In their divisions is the secret of 
 Ireland's slavery and ruin through those years. But 
 
 3* 
 
58 Lecture L The Normait Invasion, 
 
 with all that, history attests that they were still mag- 
 nanimous enough to be the fathers of their people, and 
 to be the natural leaders, as God intended them to be, 
 of their septs, families, and namesakes. And they 
 struck whatever blow they did strike in what they im- 
 agined to be the cause of right, justice, and principle, 
 and the only blow that came in the cause of outraged 
 honor and purity, came from the hands of the Irish 
 chiefs, in those dark and dreadful years. 
 
 Now, I will endeavor to follow this learned gentle- 
 man in his subsequent lectures. Now a darker cloud 
 than that of mere invasion is lowering over Ireland ; 
 now comes the demon of religious discord — the sword 
 of religious persecution waving over the distracted and 
 exhausted land. And we shall see whether this his- 
 torian has entered into the spirit of the great contest 
 that followed, and that in our day has ended in a glo- 
 rious victory for Ireland's Church and Ireland*s nation- 
 ality, and which will be followed as assuredly by tri- 
 umphs still more glorious in the future. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 IRELAND UNDER THE 
 TUDORS. 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen : We now come to con- 
 sider the second lecture of the eminent English histo- 
 rian who has come among us. It covers one of the 
 most interesting and terrible passages in our history. 
 It takes in three reigns — the reign of Henry VIII. , the 
 reign of Elizabeth, and the reign of James I. I scarce- 
 ly consider the reign of Edward VI., or of Philip and 
 Mary, worth counting. The learned gentleman began 
 his second lecture with rather a startling paradox. He 
 asserted that Henry VIII. was a hater of disorder. 
 Now, my dear friends, every man in this world has his 
 hero; whether consciously or unconsciously, every man 
 selects some character out of history that he admires, 
 until, at length, by continually dwelling on the virtues 
 and excellencies of his hero, he comes to almost wor- 
 ship him. Before us all lie the grand historic names 
 that are written in the world's annals, and every man 
 is free to select the character that he likes best, and he 
 
6o Lecture IL 
 
 thus choses his hero. Using this privilege, Mr. Froude 
 has made the most singular selection of a hero that you 
 or I ever heard of. His hero is Henry VHI. It speaks 
 volumes for the integrity of Mr. Froude's own mind. 
 It is a strong argument that he possesses a charity 
 most sublime, when he has been enabled to discover 
 virtues in the historical character of one of the great- 
 est monsters that ever cursed the earth. He has, how- 
 ever, succeeded in this, to us, apparent impossibility; 
 he has discovered among many other shining virtues 
 in the character of the English Nero a great love for 
 order, a great hatred of disorder. Well, we must stop 
 at the very first sentence of the learned gentleman and 
 try to analyze it and see how much there is of truth in 
 this word of the historian, and how much there is 
 which is honorable to him and a charitable though 
 strange figment of his imagination. All order in the 
 state is based upon three great principles, my friends. 
 First, the supremacy of the law ; second, respect for 
 the existence as well as liberty of conscience ; and 
 third, a tender regard for that which lies at the foun- 
 tain-head of all human society, namely, the sanctity of 
 the marriage tie. 
 
 The first element of order in every state is the su- 
 premacy of the law, for in this supremacy lies the 
 very quintessence of human freedom and of all order. 
 The law is supposed to be, according to the definition 
 of Aquinas, " the judgment pronounced by profound 
 reason and intellect, thinking and legislating for the 
 public good.** The law, therefore, is the expression of 
 
Ireland under the Tudor s, 6i 
 
 reason — reason backed by authority, reason influenced 
 by the noble motive of the pubHc good. This being 
 the nature of law, the very first thing that is demand- 
 ed for the law is that every man shall bow down to it 
 and obey it. No man in any community has any 
 right to claim exemption from obedience to the 
 law ; least of all the man who is at the head of the 
 community, because he is supposed to represent 
 before the nation that principle of obedience with- 
 out which all national order and happiness perishes 
 among the people. Was Henry VIII. an upholder 
 of the law ? Was he obedient to the laws ? I deny 
 it, and I have the evidence of all history to back me 
 up in that denial, and I brand Henry VIII. as one 
 of the greatest enemies of freedom and law that ever 
 lived in this world, and consequently one of the great- 
 est tyrants. My friends, I shall only give you one 
 example out of ten thousand which might be taken 
 from the history of the time. When Henry VIII. 
 broke with the Pope, he called upon his subjects 
 to acknowledge him — bless the mark ! — as spiritual 
 head of the Church. There were three abbots of 
 three Charter-houses in and near London, who refused 
 to acknowledge Henry as the supreme spiritual head 
 of the Church. He had them arrested and held for 
 trial, and he had a jury of twelve citizens of London 
 to sit upon them.'* Now, the first principle of English 
 law, the grand palladium of English legislation and 
 freedom, is the perfect liberty of the jury. The jury 
 in any country must be perfectly free, not only from 
 
62 Lecture II, 
 
 every form of coercion over them, but from even their 
 own prejudice. They must be free from any prejudg- 
 ment of the case ; they must be perfectly impartial, 
 and perfectly free to record the verdict at which their 
 impartial judgment has arrived. Those twelve men 
 refused to convict the three abbots of high treason, 
 and they grounded their refusal upon this: Never, 
 they said, has it been uttered in England that it was 
 high treason to deny the spiritual supremacy of the 
 king. It is not law, and therefore we cannot find 
 these men guilty of high treason. What did Henry 
 do? He sent word to the jury that if they did not 
 find the three abbots guilty he would visit them with 
 the same penalties which he had intended for the 
 prisoners. He sent word to the jury that they should 
 find them guilty. I brand Henry, therefore, Avith 
 having torn in pieces the Constitution of England, 
 Magna Charta, and of having trampled upon the first 
 great element of law and jurisprudence, namely, the 
 liberty of the jury. Citizens of America, would any 
 of you like to be tried for treason by a jury of twelve 
 men to whom the President of the United States had 
 said that if they failed to find you guilty he would put 
 them to death ? Where would there be liberty, where 
 would be law if such a transaction were permitted? 
 But this was done by Mr. Froude's great admirer of 
 order, and hero, Henry VHI. 
 
 The second grand element of order is respect for 
 conscience. The conscience of a man, and conse- 
 quently of a nation, is supposed to be the great guide 
 
Ireland mider the Titdors. 63 
 
 in all the relations that individuals or the people bear 
 to God. The conscience is so free that Almighty God 
 himself respects it ; and it is a theological axiom that if 
 a man does a wrong act, thinkingthat he is doing right, 
 having in his conscience invincibly the idea that he is 
 doing right, the wrong will not be attributed to him by 
 Almighty God. Was this man Henry a respecter 
 of conscience ? Again, out of ten thousand instances 
 of his contempt for liberty of conscience, let me select 
 one. He ordered the people of England to change 
 their religion. He ordered them to give up that 
 grand system of dogmatic teaching which is in the 
 Catholic Church, where every man knows what to 
 believe, and what to do. And what religion did he 
 offer them instead ? He did not offer them Protest- 
 antism, for Henry VHI. never was a Protestant, and 
 to the last day of his life, if he had only been able 
 to lay his hands upon Martin Luther he would have 
 made a toast of him. He heard Mass up to the day 
 of his death, and after his death there was a solemn 
 High Mass over his inflated corpse — a solemn High 
 Mass that the Lord might have mercy on his soul. 
 Ah, my friends, some other poor soul, I suppose, got 
 the benefit of it. What religion did he offer the peo- 
 ple of England. He simply came before them and 
 said : Let every man in the land agree with me ; what- 
 ever I say, that is religion." More than this, his parlia- 
 ment — a slavish parliament, every man of which was 
 afraid of his life — passed a law making it high treason, 
 not only to disagree with the king in anything that he 
 
64 Lecture IT, 
 
 believed, but making it high treason for any man to dis- 
 pute anything that the king should ever believe in a 
 future time. He was net only the enemy of conscience ; 
 he was the annihilator of conscience. He would allow 
 no man to have a conscience. I am your conscience, 
 he said to the nation ; I am your infallible guide in 
 all things you are to believe and in all things you are 
 to do ; and if any man sets up his own conscience 
 against me, he is guilty of high treason, and I will 
 shed his heart's blood. This is the lover of order 
 whom Mr. Froude admires. The third great element 
 of order is that upon which all society is based. The 
 great key-stone of society is the sanctity of the mar- 
 riage tie. Whatever else you interfere with this must 
 not be touched, for Christ our Lord himself said : 
 '* Those whom God has joined together let no man 
 put asunder." A valid marriage can only be dissolved 
 by the angel of death. No power in Heaven or on 
 earth, much less in hell, can dissolve the validity of a 
 marriage. Henry VHI. had so little respect for the 
 sanctity of the marriage tie, that he put away from 
 him brutally a woman to whom he was lawfully mar- 
 ried, and took in her stead, while she was yet living, a 
 woman who was supposed to be his own daughter. He 
 married six wives. Two of them he repudiated — di- 
 vorced ; two of them he beheaded ; one of them died 
 in childbirth, and the sixth and last wife, Catherine 
 Parr, had her name down in Henry's book, at the time 
 of his death, amongst the list of his victims ; he had 
 made the list out, and if the monster had lived a few 
 
Ireland under the Tudors, 65 
 
 days longer she would have been sacrificed. This is 
 all matter of history. 
 
 And now, I ask the American public, is it fair for 
 Mr. Froude, or any other living man, to come and 
 present himself before an American audience — an au- 
 dience of intelligent and cultivated people, a people 
 that have read history as well as the English histo- 
 rian, and ask them to believe the absurd paradox, that 
 Henry VIII. was an admirer of order and a hater of 
 disorder? But Mr. Froude says: Now, this is not 
 fair. I said in my lecture that I would have nothing 
 whatever to do with Henry's matrimonial transac- 
 tions. Ah ! Mr. Froude, you were wise. But at 
 least, he says, in his relations to Ireland, I claim 
 that he was a hater of disorder ; and the proof he 
 gives is the following. First of all, he says, that one 
 great curse of Ireland was the absentee landlords, and 
 he is right. Now, Henry VIII. put an end to that 
 business in the simplest way imaginable ; he took the 
 estates from the absentees, and gave them to other 
 people. My friends, it sounds well, very plausible, 
 this saying of the English historian. Let us analyze it 
 a little. During the Wars of the Roses, between the 
 Houses of York and Lancaster, which preceded the 
 Reformation in England, many English and Anglo- 
 Norman families went over from Ireland to England, 
 and joined in the conflict. It was an English ques- 
 tion, and an English war, and the consequence was 
 that numbers of the English settlers retired from Ire- 
 land, and left their estates — abandoned them entirely. 
 
66 Lecture II. 
 
 Others, again, from disgust, or because they had large 
 English properties, preferred to live in their own coun- 
 try, and retired from Ireland to live in England. So 
 that when Henry VIII. came to the throne of Eng- 
 land, there remained within the boundaries of the 
 Pale one half of Louth, West Meath, Dublin, Wick- 
 low, and Wexford. Nothing more. Henry, according 
 to Mr. Froude, performed a great act of justice. He 
 took from these absentees their estates, and gave them 
 — to whom ? To other Englishmen — his own favor- 
 ites and friends. Now, the historic fact is this : that 
 the Irish people, as soon as the English retired and 
 abandoned their estates, came in and re-possessed 
 themselves of their own property. Mark, my friends, 
 that even if the Irish people had no title to that 
 property, the very fact of the English having aban- 
 doned it, gave them a sufficient title — bona derelicta 
 sunt prhni capientis — things that are abandoned be- 
 long to the man that gets first hold of them. But 
 much more just was the title of the Irish people to 
 that land, because it was their own ; because they 
 were unjustly dispossessed of it by the very men who 
 abandoned it now ; and therefore, they came in with 
 a twofold title, namely: the land is ours because there 
 is nobody to claim it, and even if there were, the land 
 is ours because it was always ours, and we never lost 
 our right to it. 
 
 When, therefore, Henry VIII., the lover of order, 
 dispossessed the absentees of their estates, he sent over 
 other Englishmen who would reside there, and handed 
 
Ireland under the Tudor s, 6'j 
 
 over these estates to them ; and remember, the enforce- 
 ment of their claims involved driving the Irish people 
 a second time out of their property. There is the 
 whole secret of Henry VIII/s wonderful beneficence 
 to Ireland in giving us resident landlords. Just look 
 at it yourselves ; if you owned property — there are, 
 doubtless, a great many here owners of property — ^just 
 picture to yourselves the United States Government, 
 or the President of the United States turning you out 
 of your property, taking your houses and lots and land 
 from you, and giving them to some friend of his own, 
 and then saying to you, ** Now, my friends, you must 
 remember I am a lover of order ; I have given you a 
 resident landlord." Henry, as soon as he ascended the 
 throne, sent over the Earl of Surrey to Ireland, in the 
 year 1520. Surrey was a brave soldier, a stern, ener- 
 getic man, and Henry thought that by sending him 
 over to Ireland and backing him with a large army, he 
 would be able to reduce to order the disorderly ele- 
 ments of the Irish nation. That disorder reigned in 
 Ireland I am the first to admit, but in tracing this to 
 its cause I claim that the cause was not in any inherent 
 love for disorder in the Irish character — they were al- 
 ways ready to fight, I grant. But, I hold and claim 
 that the great cause of all the disorder and turmoil of 
 Ireland was the strange and incongruous legislation of 
 England for four hundred years previous ; and, secondly, 
 the presence of the Anglo-Norman lords in Ireland, who 
 were anxious to keep up the disorders in the country, 
 in order that they might have an excuse for not paying 
 
68 Lecture IL 
 
 their duties to the feudal king.'* Sir John Davies 
 attorney-general of King James I. says, that '' the 
 truth is that in time of peace the Irish are more fearful 
 to offend the law than the English or any other nation 
 whatsoever. There is no nation of people under the 
 sun that doth love equal and indifferent justice better 
 than the Irish, or will rest better satisfied with the 
 execution thereof, although it be against themselves, 
 so that they have the protection and benefits of the 
 law, when, upon just cause, they do desire it.** Surrey 
 came over and tried the strong hand for a time ; but 
 he found — brave as he was, and accomplished in gene- 
 ralship — that the Irish were a little too many for him, 
 and he sent word to Henry : ** These people," he says, 
 **can only be subdued by conquering them utterly *' — 
 cutting off all of them by fire and sword. ^^ Now,*' he 
 says, ** this you will not be able to do, because the 
 country is too large, and because the country is so 
 geographically fixed that it is impossible for an army to 
 penetrate its fastnesses, and to subjugate the whole peo- 
 ple.'* Then it was that Henry VIII. took up the policy 
 of conciliation. He could not help it. Mr. Froude 
 makes it a great virtue in Henry that he tried in this 
 to conciliate the Irish people. He took up that policy 
 because he had to do it, because he could not help it. 
 Now, my friends, there is one passage in the corre- 
 spondence between Surrey and Henry VIII. that 
 speaks volumes, and it is this : When the Earl of Sur- 
 rey arrived in Ireland, he found himself in the midst 
 of war and confusion, but the people that were really 
 
Ireland under the Tudor s, 69 
 
 the source of all that confusion, he declares, were not 
 so much the Irish or their chiefs as the Anglo-Norman 
 or English lords in Ireland. Here is the passage in 
 question. There were two chieftains of the McCar- 
 thies, Cormac Oge McCarthy, and McCarthy Ruagh 
 or Red McCarthy. Surrey writes of these two men to 
 Henry VIII., and he says : *^ They are two wise men, 
 and more conformable to order than most Englishmen 
 were." Out of the lips of one of Ireland's bitterest 
 enemies I take an answer to Mr. Froude's repeated 
 allegation that the Irish are so disorderly and such 
 lovers of turmoil and confusion, that the only way to 
 reduce us to order is to sweep us away altogether. 
 The next feature in Surrey's policy, when he found 
 that he could not conquer with the sword, was to set 
 chieftain against chieftain. And so he writes to Hen- 
 ry: I am endeavoring, he says, to perpetuate the 
 animosity between O'Donnell and O'Neill of Ulster 
 — here are his words — ^* for it would be dangerful to 
 have them both agree and join together." It would 
 be dangerous to England. Well may Mr. Froude say 
 that in the day when we Irishmen are united, we shall 
 be invincible, and. no power on earth shall keep us 
 slaves. '^ It would be dangerful to have them agree 
 and join together, and the longer they continue in 
 war the better it shall be for your grace's poor sub- 
 jects here." Now mark the spirit of that letter. It 
 tells the whole genius and spirit of England's treat- 
 ment of Ireland. He does not speak of the Irish as 
 the subjects of the King of England. He has not the 
 
yo Lecture II, 
 
 slightest consideration for the unfortunate Irish whom 
 they were pitting against each other. Let them bleed, 
 he says ; the longer they continue at war, and the 
 greater number of them that are swept away, the bet- 
 ter it will be for your grace's poor subjects here. Party 
 legislation, party laws, intended only to protect the 
 English settlers, and exterminate the Irishmen. This, ** 
 Sir John Davis himself declared, lay at the bottom of 
 the English legislation for Ireland for four hundred 
 years, and was the cause of all the evils and miseries of 
 the country. Surrey retired after two years, and then, 
 according to Mr. Froude, Henry tried ^' home rule '* 
 in Ireland. Here, again, the learned historian tries to 
 make a point for his hero. Irishmen, he says, admire 
 the memory of this man. He tried home rule with 
 you, and he found that you were not able to govern 
 yourselves, and then he was obliged to take the whip 
 and use it. Let us see what kind of home rule Henry 
 tried. One would imagine that home rule in Ireland 
 meant that Irishmen should manage their own affairs, 
 make their own laws. It either means this or it means 
 nothing. It is a delusion, a mockery, and a snare un- 
 less it means that the Irish people have a right to as- 
 semble in their parliament and govern themselves, by 
 legislating for themselves, and making their own laws. 
 Did Henry VIII. *s '' home rule" mean this? Not a 
 bit of it. All he did was to make the Earl of Kil- 
 dare Lord Lieutenant, or Lord Deputy of Ireland, to 
 please the Irishmen, that is to say, the Anglo-Norman 
 Irishmen. In this consists the whole scheme of home 
 
Ireland under the Tudor s. 7 1 
 
 rule attributed by Mr. Froude to Henry VIII. He 
 did not call upon the Irish nation and say to them : 
 Return your members to parliament, and I will allow 
 you to make your own laws. He did not call upon 
 the Irish chieftains — the natural representatives of the 
 nation, the men in whose veins flowed the blood of 
 Ireland's chieftainship for thousands of years. He 
 did not call upon the O'Briens, the O'Neills, the 
 McCarthymore, and the O'Connors, and say to them : 
 Come, assemble, and make laws for yourselves, and if 
 they are just laws, I will set my seal upon them and 
 allow you to govern Ireland through your own legisla- 
 tion. No ; but he set a clique of Anglo-Norman lords, 
 the most unruly, the most lawless, and the most rest- 
 less pack ever heard of or read of in all history, he 
 set these men to take the government of the country 
 for a time into their hands, and what was the conse- 
 quence ? No sooner did he leave them to govern than 
 they began to make war on the Irish — to tear them to 
 pieces. The first thing that Kildare does after his ap- 
 pointment in 1522, is to summon an army and lay 
 waste the territories of the Irish chieftains around 
 him, to kill their people, to burn their villages. After 
 a time they fell out among themselves. The great 
 Anglo-Norman family of the Butlers became jealous 
 of Kildare, who w^as a Fitzgerald, and they began to 
 accuse him of treason ; and on two occasions it is really 
 true that Kildare did carry on a treasonable corre- 
 spondence, in the year 15 14, with Francis I., King of 
 France, and Charles V., Emperor of Germany. He was 
 
72 Lecture II. 
 
 called to England for the third time to answer 
 for his conduct in 1534, and there Henry put him 
 in prison. While he was in the Tower in London, 
 his son, Thomas Fitzgerald, who was called '* Silken 
 Thomas,'* a brave young man, revolted because his 
 father was in prison, and they told him Henry *• 
 intended to put him to death. Henry declared war 
 against him, and he against the King of England, and 
 the consequence of that war was that a portion of the 
 province of Munster, and a great part of Leinster, was 
 ravaged by the king's armies, the people destroyed, 
 and the towns and villages burned, until, at length, 
 there was not as much left as would feed man or beast. 
 And so, under the home rule of Henry, the troubles 
 with the Norman lords and the treason of Kildare 
 ended in the ruin of large numbers of the Irish peo- 
 ple. Perhaps you will ask me — Did the Irish people 
 take part in that war so as to justify Henry's share in 
 the awful treatment they received? I answer, they 
 took no part in it ; it was an English business from be- 
 ginning to end. O'CarroU, O'More of Ossory, and 
 O'Conor, these were the only chieftains that sided 
 with the Geraldines at all, and drew the sword against 
 England ; and they were three chiefs of rather small 
 importance, and by no means represented the Irish, 
 as it was called, of Munster, or any other Irish prov- 
 ince. And yet upon the Irish people fell the aveng- 
 ing hand of Henry the Eighth's armies. Mr. Froude 
 goes on to say that " the Irish people, somehow or 
 other, got to like Henry VIII." Well, if they did, I 
 
Ireland under the Ttcdors. 73 
 
 don't admire their taste. He pleased them, said Mr. 
 Froude — and he assigns the reason. It was that 
 Henry never showed any disposition to dispossess 
 the Irish people of their lands and to exterminate 
 them. Honest Henry ! Now, I take him up on that 
 point. Fortunately for the Irish historian, the State 
 papers are open to us as well as to Mr. Froude. 
 What do the State papers of the reign of Henry 
 VIII. tell us ? They tell us that project after pro- 
 ject was formed during the reign of this monarch to 
 drive all the Irish nation into Connaught, over the 
 Shannon ; — that Henry wished to do away with the 
 Irish race altogether. Henry wished it, and the peo- 
 ple of England desired it ; and one of these State 
 papers ends in these words : *^ Consequently the pre- 
 mise brought to pass, there shall no Irish be on this 
 side of the waters of Shannon, unpersecuted, unsub- 
 jected, and unexiled ; then shall the English Pale be 
 well two hundred Irish miles long, and more." More 
 than this, we have the evidence of the State papers 
 of the time that Henry VIII. contemplated the utter 
 extirpation and sweeping destruction of the whole 
 Irish race. We find even the Lord Deputy and 
 Council in Dublin writing to his Majesty, and suggest- 
 ing to hi-m the difficulty of realizing his design. 
 Here are the very words : ^' The land is very large, 
 by estimation as large as England, so that to inhabit 
 the whole with new inhabitors, the number would be 
 so great that there is no prince christened that com- 
 modiously might spare so many subjects to depart 
 
 4 
 
74 Lecture II, 
 
 out of his regions ; but to enterprise the whole extir- 
 pation and total desti action of all the Irishmen of 
 the land, it would be a marvellous and sumptuous 
 charge and great difficulty, considering both the lack 
 of inhabitors, and the great hardness and misery these 
 Irishmen can endure, both of hunger, cold and thirst, 
 and evil lodging, more than the inhabitants of any 
 other land. And by precedent of the conquest of this 
 land, we have not heard or read in any chronicle that 
 at such conquests the whole inhabitants of the lands 
 have been utterly extirped and banished." 
 
 Great God ! is this the man that Mr. Froude tells 
 us was the friend of the Irish, and never showed any 
 desire to take their lands and dispossess and destroy 
 them? This is the man — the model admirer of order 
 and hater of disorder. Surely he was about to create 
 a magnificent order ; for his idea was, if a people are 
 troublesome, and you want to reduce them to quiet, 
 the best way and the simplest way is to kill them 
 all. Just like some of those people in England ; those 
 nurses we read of a few years ago, that were farming 
 out children. When the child was a little fractious 
 they gave him a nice little dose of poison, and they 
 called it ** quietness.'* Do you know the reason why 
 Henry VIII. pleased the Irish? for there is no doubt 
 about it ; they were more pleased with him than with 
 any English monarch up to that time. The reason is 
 a very simple one. He had his own designs ; but 
 while concealing them he was meditating, like an 
 anticipated Oliver Cromwell, the utter ruin and de- 
 
Ireland under the Tudor s. 75 
 
 struction of all the Irish race ; but he had the good 
 sense to keep it to himself, and he only comes out 
 in his State papers. But he treated the Irish with 
 a certain amount of courtesy and politeness. ' Henry, 
 with all his faults, was a learned man — an accom- 
 plished man — a man of very elegant manners, a man 
 with a bland smile, who would give you a warm 
 shake of the hand ; it is true he might the next day 
 have your head cut off, but still he had the manners 
 of a gentleman ; and it is a singular fact, my friends, 
 that the two most gentlemanly kings of England were 
 the greatests coundrels that ever lived: Henry VIII. 
 and George IV. Accordingly he dealt with the Irish 
 people with a certain amount of civility and courtesy ; 
 he did not come amongst them like all his prede- 
 cessors, saying : You are the king's enemies ; you 
 are to be all put to death ; you are without the pale 
 of the law ; you are barbarians and savages ; I will 
 have nothing to say to you. Not a bit of it. Henry 
 came and said : Let us see if we cannot arrange our 
 difficulties, if we can't live in peace and quiet? And 
 the Irish were charmed with the man's manners. 
 Ah ! my friends, it is true that there was a black heart 
 under that smiling face, but it is also true, as Mr. Froude 
 alleges, that Henry VIII. had a certain amount of popu- 
 larity amongst the Irish people ; which proves that if 
 the English only knew how to treat us with respect 
 and courtesy and with some show of kindness, they 
 would have long since won the heart of Ireland, instead 
 of embittering it as much by the haughtiness and 
 
"j^ Lecture II, 
 
 stupid pride of their manner as by the injustice and 
 cruelty of their laws. A.nd this is what I meant when 
 on last Tuesday evening I asserted that English con- 
 tempt for Ireland is the real evil that lies deeply at the 
 root of all the bad spirit that exists between the two 
 nations, for the simple reason that the Irish people are 
 too intellectual, too strong, too energetic, too pure of 
 race and blood, too ancient and too proud to be de- 
 spised. 
 
 And now, my friends, Mr. Froude went on in his lec- 
 tures to give a proof of the great love that the Irish 
 people had for Henry VIII. He says that they were 
 so fond of this king, they actually, at the king*s request, 
 threw the Pope overboard. Now, Mr. Froude, fond 
 as we were of your glorious hero, we were not 
 so enamored of him, we had not fallen so deeply in 
 love with him as to give up the Pope for him. What 
 are the facts of the case? Henry, about the year 1530, 
 got into difficulties with the Pope, which ended in his 
 denying the authority and the supremacy of the head of 
 the Catholic Church. He then picked out an apostate 
 monk, a man who had given up his faith, a man with- 
 out a shadow of either conscience, character, or virtue, 
 and he had him consecrated the first Protestant Arch- 
 bishop of Dublin. This was an Englishman by the 
 name of Brown ; and he sent George Brown over to 
 Dublin in 1534 with a commission to get the Irish 
 nation to follow in the wake of England, and throw the 
 Pope overboard and acknowledge Henry's supremacy. 
 Brown arrived in Dublin, and he called the bishops 
 
Ireland under the Tudors, yy 
 
 together — the bishops of the Catholic Church — and he 
 said to them : You must change your allegiance, you 
 must give up the Pope, and take Henry, the King of. 
 England, in his stead. The Archbishop of Armagh in 
 these days was an Englishman ; his name was Cromer ; 
 the moment he heard these words he rose up at the 
 council board and said : What blasphemy is this I 
 hear! Ireland will never change her faith. Ireland 
 never will renounce her Catholicity, and she would 
 have to do it by renouncing the head of the Catholic 
 Church. All the bishops of Ireland followed the 
 Primate, all the priests of Ireland followed the Primate, 
 and George Brown wrote a most lugubrious letter 
 home to his protector, Thomas Cromwell, telling 
 him that he could make nothing of this people, and 
 no doubt he would have returned to England, only 
 he was afraid the king would have his head taken 
 off. Three years later, however. Brown and the 
 Lord Deputy summoned a parliament ; and it was at 
 this parliament of 1537, according to Mr. Froude, that 
 Ireland threw the Pope overboard. Now, what are 
 the facts? A parliament was assembled. From time 
 immemorial in Ireland, whenever the parliament was 
 assembled there were three delegates called proctors, 
 from every Catholic diocese in Ireland, who sat in the 
 House of Commons by virtue of their office. When this 
 parliament was called, the very first thing that they 
 did was to banish the three proctors who came from 
 every diocese in Ireland, and to deprive them of their 
 seats in the house. Without the slightest justice. 
 
78 Lecture IL 
 
 without the slightest show or pretence of either right 
 or law or justice, the proctors were excluded, and so 
 the ecclesiastical element of Ireland, the Church ele- 
 ment, was precluded from that parliament of 1537. 
 Then, partly by bribes and partly by threats, the venal ^ 
 parliament of the Pale — the English Pale, the parlia- 
 ment of the region of the rotten little boroughs that 
 surrounded Dublin in the five half counties — declared 
 themselves willing to take the oath that Henry VIII. 
 was the head of the Church ; and this Mr. Froude 
 calls the apostasy of the Irish nation. With this 
 strange want of knowledge — for I can call it nothing 
 else — of our religion, he attests that Ireland re- 
 mained Catholic even though he asserts that she 
 gave up the Pope. They took the oath, he says, 
 *^ bishops and all took the oath of Henr>' VIII.'s su- 
 premacy, and they didn't become Protestants ; they still 
 remained Catholics ; and the reason why they refused 
 to take the same oath to Elizabeth, was that Eliza- 
 beth insisted upon the Protestant religion as well as 
 the supremacy." Now I answer Mr. Froude at once 
 to set him right on this point. The Catholic Church 
 teaches, and has always taught, that no man is a Cath- 
 olic who is not in the communion of obedience with 
 the Pope of Rome. Henry VIII., who was a learned 
 man, had too much logic and too much theology and 
 too much sense to become what is called a Protestant. 
 He never embraced the doctrines of Luther ; and he 
 held on to every iota of the Catholic doctrine to the 
 very last day of his life, save and except that he re- 
 
Ireland under the Tudors, 79 
 
 fused to acknowledge the Pope ; and on the day 
 that Henry VIII. refused to acknowledge the Pope, 
 Henry VIII. ceased to be a Catholic. To pretend, 
 therefore, or to hint that the Irish people were so 
 igrorant as to imagine that the king threw the Pope 
 overboard and still remained a Catholic, is to offer 
 to the genius and to the intelligence of Ireland a 
 gratuitous insult. It is true that some five of the 
 bishops apostatized — I can call it nothing else. They 
 took the oath of supremacy to Henry. Their names, 
 living in the execration of Irish history, were Eugene 
 Maginnis, Bishop of Down and Connor ; Roland 
 Burke, I am sorry to say. Bishop of Clonfert ; Flor- 
 ence Gerawan, Bishop of Clonmacnoise ; Matthew 
 Sanders, Bishop of Leighlin, and Hugh O'Cervallan, 
 Bishop of Clanforth — five bishops apostatized. TTie 
 rest of Ireland's episcopacy remained faithful. George 
 Brown, the apostate Archbishop of Dublin, acknowl- 
 edged his failure. Of all the priests in the diocese of 
 Dublin, he could only persuade three to take the 
 oath to Henry VIII. There was a priest down in 
 Cork ; he was an Irishman — a rector of Shandon — and 
 his name was Dominick Tirrey, and he was offered the 
 bishopric of Cork if he took the oath, and he took it. 
 There was a man named William Miagh, another 
 priest — he was offered the diocese of Kildare if he 
 took the oath, and he took it. There was a man 
 named Alexander Devereaux, abbot of Dunbrody, 
 a Cistercian monk — he was offered the diocese of 
 Ferns in the County Wexford, and he took it. 
 
8o Lecture IL 
 
 These are all the names that represent the national 
 apostasy of Ireland. Eight men ; out of so many 
 hundred, eight were frund wanting; and Mr. Froude 
 turns round quietly and calmly, and tells us that 
 the Irish bishops, priests, and people were found 
 wanting, and threw the Pope overboard. He makes 
 another assertion, and I regret that he made it ; re- 
 gret it because there is much in the learned gentleman 
 that I admire and esteem. He asserts that the bishops 
 of Ireland in those days were immoral men ; that they 
 had families ; that they were not at all like the vener- 
 able men whom we see established in the episcopacy 
 to-day. Now, I answer, there is not a shred of testi- 
 mony to bear out Mn Froude in this wild assertion. 
 I have read the history of Ireland, national, civil, and 
 ecclesiastical, as far as I could, and nowhere have I 
 seen even an allegation, much less a proof of immo- 
 rality against the Irish clergy and their bishops at 
 the time of the Reformation. But perhaps when Mr. 
 Froude said this of the bishops he meant the apostate 
 bishops ; if so, I am willing to grant him whatever he 
 chooses in regard to them ; and whatever charge he 
 lays upon them, the heavier it is the more satisfied I 
 am to see it coming. 
 
 The next passage in the relations of Henry VIII. 
 to Ireland goes to prove that Ireland did not throw 
 the Pope overboard. My friends, in the year 1541 a 
 parliament assembled in Dublin and declared that 
 Henry VIII. was King of Ireland. They had been 
 four hundred years and more fighting for that title — 
 
Ireland under the Tudor s. 8 1 
 
 at length it was conferred by the Irish Parliament upon 
 the English monarch. Two years later, in gratitude 
 to the Irish Parliament, Henry called the Irish 
 chieftains over to a grand assembly at Greenwich, 
 and on the first of July, 1543, he gave the Irish 
 chieftains their English titles. O'Neill of Ulster 
 was made Earl of Tyrone ; the glorious O'Don- 
 nell Earl of Tyrconnell ; Ulick McWilliam Burke 
 was called the Earl of Clanricarde ; Fitzpatrick was 
 given the name of the Baron of Ossory, and they 
 returned to Ireland with their new English titles. 
 Henry, free, open-handed, generous fellow as he was 
 — for he was really very generous — gave them 
 not only titles, but he gave them a vast amount 
 of property, which happened to be stolen from tke 
 Catholic Church. He was an exceedingly generous 
 man with other people's goods. He had a good deal 
 of that spirit of which Artemus Ward made mention 
 when he said he was quite content to see his wife's 
 first cousin go to the war. In order to promote the 
 Reformation — not Protestantism, but his own Refor- 
 mation in Ireland — Henry gave to these Irish earls 
 with their English titles, all the abbey lands, all the 
 convents, and all the churches that lay within their 
 possessions. The consequence was he enriched 
 them, and to the eternal shame of the O'Neill and 
 the O'Donnell, McWilliam Burke, and Fitzpatrick 
 of Ossory, they had the cowardice and the weak- 
 ness to accept the gifts at his hands. Then they 
 came home with the spoils of the monasteries and 
 
 4* 
 
82 Lecture II. 
 
 their English titles. Now, mark ! The Irish people 
 were as true as steel ou that day when the Irish chief- 
 tains were false to their country. Nowhere in the 
 previous history of Ireland do we read of the clans 
 rising against their chieftains ; nowhere do we read 
 of the O'Neill and the O'Donnell being despised by 
 their own people, but on this occasion, when they came 
 home, mark what follows. O'Brien, Earl of Thomond, 
 when he arrived in Munster, found half of his domin- 
 ions in revolt against him. The Burkes of Connaught, 
 as soon as they heard that McWilliam, their natural 
 leader — the earl — had accepted the abbey lands, the 
 very first thing they did was to depose him and 
 set up another man, not by the title of the Earl of 
 Clanricarde, but by the title of McWilliam Ough- 
 ter. When O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone, came home to 
 Ulster, he was taken by his own son, clapped into 
 jail, and died there. ^° O'Donnell, Earl of Tyrcon- 
 nell, came home, and his own son and all his people 
 rose up against him and drove him out of the midst 
 of them. 
 
 Now, I say, in the face of all this, Mr. Froude 
 is not justified in stating that Ireland threw the Pope 
 overboard, for, remember, these chieftains did not 
 renounce the Catholic religion — according to Mr. 
 Froude they only renounced the Papal supremacy; 
 they did not become Protestants, they only became 
 schismatics and ceased to be Catholics, and Ireland 
 would not stand that. 
 
 Henry died in 1547, and I verily believe that, with 
 
Ireland under the Tudors. 83 
 
 all the badness of his heart, if he had lived for a few 
 years longer his life would not have been so much 
 a curse as a blessing to Ireland, for the simple reason 
 that those who came after him were worse than him- 
 self. He was succeeded by his child-son, Edward VI. 
 Edward was under the care of the Duke of Somerset. 
 Somerset was a thoroughgoing Protestant, and did 
 not believe in the Papal supremacy, in the Mass, 
 in the sacraments — in anything that formed the es- 
 pecial teaching of the Catholic Church. He was op- 
 posed to them all, and he sent over to Ireland his 
 orders, as soon as Henry was dead and when young 
 Edward was proclaimed king, to put the laws in force 
 against the Catholics. The churches were pillaged, 
 the bishops and priests driven out, and, as Mr. Froude 
 puts it, *^the emblems of superstition were pulled 
 down." The emblems of superstition, as Mr. Froude 
 calls them, were the figure of Christ crucified, the 
 statues of His Blessed Mother, and the statues and 
 pictures of His saints. All these things were pulled 
 down and destroyed ; the crucifix w^as trampled under 
 foot, and the ancient statue of our Lady of Trim was 
 publicly burned. The churches were rifled and 
 sacked. Then, as Mr. Froude elegantly puts it, 
 ^* Ireland was taught a lesson that she must yield to 
 the new order of things or stand by the Pope." '' And 
 Irish tradition," he says, ^* and ideas became insepara- 
 bly linked with religion." Perfectly true, Mr. Froude ! 
 He goes on to say, in eloquent language, *^ Ireland 
 chose its place on the Pope's side, and chose it irrevo- 
 
84 Lecture II. 
 
 cably, and from that time the cause of the Catholic 
 religion and Irish independence became inseparably 
 one." (Great applause.) If the learned gentleman were 
 present I have no doubt he would rise up and bow his 
 thanks to you for the hearty manner in which you have 
 received his sentiments. I am sure, as he is not here, he 
 will not take it ill of me when I thank you in his name. 
 
 Edward died after a short reign, and then came 
 Queen Mary, who is known in England by the title 
 of " Bloody Mary." She was a Catholic, and without 
 doubt she persecuted her Protestant subjects. But 
 Mr. Froude makes this remark in his lecture. 
 He says, '' There was no persecution of Protest- 
 ants in Ireland, because there were no Protestants 
 there to be persecuted." He goes on to say, "those 
 who were in the land fled when Mary came to the 
 throne." 
 
 Now, my friends, I must take the learned historian 
 to task in this. The insinuation is that if any Prot- 
 estants had been in Ireland the Irish Catholic peo- 
 ple would have persecuted them. The impression 
 that he tries to leave on the mind is that we Cath- 
 olics are only too glad to imbrue our hands in the 
 blood of our fellow-citizens on the question of re- 
 ligious differences and of doctrine. And he goes 
 on to confirm this impression by saying, " the Prot- 
 estants who were in Ireland fled." As much as to 
 say, whatever chance they had in England, they had 
 no chance in Ireland. 
 
 Now, what are the historic facts? The facts are 
 
Ireland under the Tudor s. 85 
 
 that during the reign of Edward VI., and during the 
 later years of his father*s reign, certain apostates from 
 the Catholic faith were sent over to Ireland as bishops 
 — men whom even English history convicts and con- 
 demns of every crime. As soon as Mary came to the 
 throne these gentlemen did not wait to be ordered out 
 — they went out of their own accord. It was not a 
 question at all of the Irish people — it was a question 
 between the Catholic Queen of England and certain 
 English bishops foisted upon the Irish Church. They 
 thought it was the best of their play to clear out, and 
 I verily believe they acted very prudently. 
 
 But, as far as regards the Irish people, I claim for 
 my native land that they never persecuted on account 
 of religion. I am proud in addressing an American 
 audience to be able to lay this high claim for Ireland 
 — that the genius of the Irish people is not a persecut- 
 ing genius. There is not a people on the face of the 
 earth so attached to the Catholic religion as the Irish 
 race. But there is not a people on the face of the 
 earth so unwilling to persecute or to shed blood in the 
 cause of religion as the Irish. And here are my 
 proofs. Mr. Froude says that the Protestants made 
 off out of Ireland as soon as Mary came to the throne. 
 But Sir James Ware, in his annals, tells us, that the 
 Protestants were being persecuted in England under 
 Mary, and actually fled over to Ireland for protection. 
 He gives even the names of some of them. He tells 
 us that John Harvey, Abel Ellis, John Edmunds, and 
 Henry Haugh, all natives of Cheshire, came over to 
 
86 Lecture II. 
 
 Ireland to avoid the persecution in England. They 
 brought a Welsh Protestant minister named Thomas 
 Jones with them. Nay, more, these four gentle- 
 men were received so cordially, and were welcomed 
 so hospitably, that they actually founded highly re- ' 
 spectable mercantile houses in Dublin. We have an- 
 other magnificent proof that the Irish people are not 
 a persecuting race. When James II. assembled his 
 Catholic Parliament in Ireland, in 1689, the Catholics 
 had been more than a hundred years under the lash 
 of their Protestant fellow-citizens, robbed, plundered, 
 imprisoned, and put to death for their conscientious 
 adherence to the Catholic faith. At last the wheel 
 got turned, and in 1689 ^^^ Catholics were up and the 
 Protestants were down. That parliament assembled 
 to the number of two hundred and twenty-eight mem- 
 bers. The Celt, the Irish Catholic element, was in a 
 sweeping majority. What was the first law they 
 made ? The very first law that that Catholic Par- 
 liament passed was as follows : '^ We hereby decree 
 that it is the law of this land of Ireland that neither 
 now or ever again shall any man be persecuted for his 
 religion.** This was the retaliation they took on them. 
 Was it not magnificent? Was it not a grand specimen 
 of that spirit of Christianity, that spirit of forgiveness 
 and charity, without which, all the dogmatic truths that 
 were ever revealed won't save or ennoble the Christian 
 man?" 
 
 And now, coming to good Queen Bess, as she is 
 called, Mr. Froude lays it on her very heavy. He 
 
Ireland under the Tudors, 87 
 
 speaks of her rule in language as terrific in its severity 
 as I could, and far more, for I have not the learning or 
 the eloquence of Mr. Froude. But he says one little 
 thing of her worthy of remark. He says Elizabeth 
 was reluctant to draw the sword ; but when she drew 
 it she never sheathed it until the star of freedom was 
 fixed upon her banner, never to pale. This is a very 
 eloquent passage. But the soul of eloquence is truth. 
 Is it true, historically, that Elizabeth was reluctant to 
 draw the sword ? Answer it, ye Irish annals ; answer 
 it, history of Ireland. Elizabeth came to the throne in 
 1558. The following year, 1559, there was a parlia- 
 ment assembled by her order in Dublin. What do you 
 think were the laws that were made by that parliament ? 
 It was not a Catholic Parliament, but an Anglo-Irish and 
 Protestant Parliament. It consisted of seventy-six gen- 
 tlemen. Generally speaking, the parliaments in Ireland 
 used to have from two hundred and twenty to two hun- 
 dred and thirty members. This parliament of Elizabeth 
 consisted of seventy-six picked men. The laws that 
 that parliament made were, first, "- Any clergyman not 
 using the * Book of Common Prayer' — the Protestant 
 prayer-book — or using any other form of prayer, either 
 in public or private, the first time he is discovered, he 
 is to be deprived of his benefice for one year and suffer 
 imprisonment in jail for six months. For a second 
 offence he is to forfeit his income forever, and to be 
 put into jail, to be let out only at the queen's good 
 pleasure, whenever she thought proper. For the third 
 offence he was to be put in close confinement for life." 
 
88 Lecture 11. 
 
 This is the lady that was reluctant to draw the sword, 
 my friends. Remember, this was the very year after 
 she was crowned queen. She scarcely waited a year, 
 and yet this was the woman that was reluctant to draw 
 the sword. 
 
 So much for the priests, now for the laymen. *' If 
 any layman was discovered using-another prayer-book 
 except Elizabeth's prayer-book — he was sent into jail 
 for a year, and if caught doing this a second time, he 
 was put into prison for the rest of his life." Every 
 Sunday the people were obliged to go to the Protest- 
 ant church. If any one refused to go — for every time he 
 refused he was fined twelve pence. That would be about 
 twelve shillings of our present money. And besides the 
 fine of twelve pence, he was to incur the censure of the 
 Church, whatever that meant. *^ The star of freedom," 
 says Mr. Froude, ** was never to pale, and the queen 
 drew the sword in the cause of that star." But, my 
 friends, freedom meant whatever fitted in Elizabeth's 
 mind ; freedom meant for our fathers a slavery, tenfold 
 increased by the addition of persecution of the unfor- 
 tunate Irish. If this be Mr. Froude's idea of the star 
 of freedom, all I can say is the sooner such a star 
 falls from the firmament of Heaven, and the world's 
 history, the better. 
 
 In what state was the Irish Church? We have the 
 authority of the Protestant historian, Leland, that 
 there were two hundred and twenty parish churches 
 in Meath, and in a few years' time there were only one 
 hundred and five of them left with the roofs on. *'A11 
 
Ireland under the Tudors, 89 
 
 over the kingdom/* says Leland, ** the people were 
 left without any religious worship, and under the pre- 
 text of obeying the orders of the State, they seized all 
 the most valuable furniture of the churches, which 
 they exposed for sale, without decency or reserve/' A 
 number of hungry adventurers were let loose upon the 
 Irish Church and Irish people by Elizabeth. They 
 not only robbed them, but plundered their churches, 
 and shed the blood of the bishops, priests, and people 
 of Ireland in torrents, as Mr. Froude himself acknowl- 
 edges. He tells us **that in the second rebellion 
 of the Geraldines, such was the state to which the 
 fair province of Munster was reduced, that you might 
 go through the land, from the furthermost point of 
 Kerry until you came into the eastern plains of Tip- 
 perary, and you would not even hear as much as the 
 whistle of the ploughboy, or behold the face of a liv- 
 ing man. And that the trenches and ditches were 
 full of the corpses of the people ; " that '' the country 
 was reduced to a howling, desolate wilderness." The 
 poet Spenser describes it in the most terrific and 
 graphic style ; and even he, case-hardened as he was, 
 — being one of the plunderers and persecutors himself 
 — acknowledges that the state of Munster was 
 such that no man could look upon it with a dry eye. 
 Sir Henry Sydney, one of Elizabeth's own deputies, 
 speaks of the Irish Church. *' So deformed," he says, 
 **and overthrown a church, there is not, I am sure, in 
 any region where the name of Christ is professed, such 
 horrible spectacles to behold, as the burning of vil- 
 
90 Lecture IL 
 
 lages, the ruin of churches — yea, the view of the bones 
 and skulls of the dead, who, partly by murder, partly 
 by famine, have died in the fields, as in troth hardly 
 any Christian with dry eyes can behold." There is 
 the testimony of the state to which this terrible woman 
 had reduced unhappy Ireland. Stafford, another En- 
 glish authority and statesman, says, ** I knew it was 
 bad, very bad, in Ireland ; but that it was so stark 
 nought I did not believe." 
 
 And in the midst of all this persecution there was 
 still a reigning idea in the mind of the English gov- 
 ernment ; it was still the old idea of rooting out and 
 extirpating the Irish from their own land, to which 
 was added the element of religious discord and perse- 
 cution. It is evident that this was still in the mind of 
 the English people. Elizabeth, who, Mr. Froude says, 
 " never dispossessed an Irishman of an acre of his 
 land," Elizabeth, during the terrible war which she 
 had waged in the latter days of her reign against he- 
 roic Hugh O'Neill in Ulster, threw out such hints as 
 these, ^' The more slaughter there is, the better it will 
 be for my English subjects ; the more land they will 
 get." This woman, who, Mr. Froude tells us, ** Never 
 confiscated, and would never listen to the idea of the 
 confiscation of property ; " this woman, when theGer- 
 aldines were destroyed, took the whole of the vast es- 
 tates of the Earl of Desmond, and gave them all 
 quietly and calmly to certain Englishmen from Lanca- 
 shire, Devonshire, Somersetshire, and Cheshire ; and in 
 the face of these truths, recorded and stamped on the 
 
Ireland under the Tudor s, 91 
 
 world's history, I cannot understand how any man can 
 come in and say of this atrocious woman, ^^ Whatever 
 she did, she intended for the good of Ireland." The 
 annals of my own order record that there were six 
 hundred Dominican Friars in Ireland in her time. 
 *^ There are said to have been but four Fathers of the 
 Order of St. Dominick left remaining at the time of 
 Elizabeth's death," says Mr. McGee, in his history of 
 Ireland. Five of our bishops received at her hands 
 the crown of martyrdom ; yet, during the half century 
 of blood that marks her reign, we do not read of one 
 single apostate among the bishops, and but half-a- 
 dozen at most from all the orders of the clergy. 
 
 In 1602 she died, after reigning forty-one years, 
 leaving Ireland, at the hour of her death, one vast 
 slaughter-house. Munster was reduced to the state in 
 which Spenser described it. Connaught was reduced 
 to a wilderness through the rebellion of the Clanri- 
 cardes, of the Burke family. Ulster, through the 
 agency of Lord Mountjoy, was left the very picture of 
 desolation. The glorious Red Hugh O'Donnell, and 
 the magnificent Hugh O'Neill were crushed and de- 
 feated after fifteen years' war ; and the consequence 
 was that when James I. succeeded Elizabeth, he found 
 Ireland almost a wilderness. What did he do ? He 
 quietly, at first, promised the Irish that they should 
 keep their lands. He succeeded to the throne of Eng- 
 land in 1603, and for four years — I must give him the 
 credit — for four years he kept his word. In 1607, 
 through a sham conspiracy, Hugh O'Neill and O'Don- 
 
92 Lecture II. 
 
 nell of Tyrconnel fled from the country, and then Sir 
 Arthur Chichester, the agent of the English king, de- 
 veloped one of the most extraordinary schemes that 
 was ever heard of in the relations between one country 
 and another. They took the whole of the province* 
 of Ulster, every square foot of Ireland's richest and 
 finest province, and cleared out the whole Irish popu- 
 lation and handed it over bodily to settlers from Eng- 
 land and Scotland. It was called the *' Plantation of 
 Ulster.'* They gave to the Protestant Archbishop of 
 Armagh 43,000 acres of the finest land in Ireland; 
 they gave to Trinity College in Dublin, 30,000 acres ; 
 they gave to the skinners, dry-salters and cordwainers, 
 corporations and trades of London, 208,000 acres ; 
 they brought over colonies of Scotch Presbyterians 
 and English Protestants and gave them lots of 1,000, 
 1,500 and 2,000 acres of land in extent, making them 
 swear as a condition that they would not as much as 
 employ one single Irish Catholic, or let them come 
 near them. Thus millions of acres of the finest land 
 in Ireland were taken at one blow from the Irish peo- 
 ple, and they were thrust out of all their property. 
 
 Mr. Froude in his rapid historical sketch says: 
 '^ But all this, of course, bred revenge." He tells us 
 *^ in 1641 the Irish rose in rebellion." They did. Now 
 he makes one statement, and with the refutation of 
 that statement I close this lecture. 
 
 I know, my friends, to many among you these lec- 
 tures must appear dry ; we cannot help it ; history 
 generally is a dry subject.. Mr. Froude tells us that in 
 
Ireland under the Tudors, 93 
 
 the rising under Sir Phelim O'Neill in 1642, there were 
 38,000 Protestants murdered by the Irish. Now, that 
 is a grave charge ; that is one of the most terrific 
 things to accuse a people of, if it be not true. If it be 
 true, all I can say is that I blush for my fathers. But 
 if it be not true, why repeat it ? why not, in the name 
 of God, wipe it out with disdain from the record of his- 
 tory ? Is it true ? The Irish rose under Sir Phelim 
 O'Neill ; and, at that time, there was a Protestant par- 
 son in Ireland calling himself " a minister of the Word 
 of God." He gave his account of the whole transac- 
 tion in a letter to the people of England, begging of 
 them to help their fellow-Protestants in Ireland. Here 
 are his words : ^* It was the intention of the Irish to 
 massacre all the English. On Saturday they were to 
 disarm them, on Sunday to seize all their cattle and 
 goods, and on Monday they were to cut all the English 
 throats. The former they executed, the third one " — 
 massacre — ^' they failed in." Petty, an English au- 
 thority, tells us that there were 30,000 Protestants 
 massacred at that time. A man by the name of May, 
 another historian, puts it at 200,000 ; he thought, ^^ in 
 for a penny, in for a pound." But there was one hon- 
 est Protestant clergyman in Ireland who examined 
 minutely the details of the whole conspiracy and all 
 the evils that came from it. What does he say ? ** I 
 have discovered," he says — and gives as proof state 
 papers and authentic records — *^ that the Irish Catho- 
 lics in that rising massacred 2,100 Protestants; that 
 other Protestants said that there were 1,600 more, and 
 
94 Lecture IL 
 
 that some Irish authorities themselves say that there 
 were 300 more, making altogether 4,000 persons." This 
 is the massacre that Mr. Froude says — he just tosses 
 it off as calmly as if it were Gospel — ** 38,000 Protest- 
 ants were massacred,'' that is to say, he has multiplied 
 the original number by 10 ; whereas, Mr. Warner, the 
 authority in question, actually says, " That there were 
 2,100," ^* and," he continues, *^ I am not willing to be- 
 lieve in the additional numbers that have been sent 
 in." This is the way that history is written ; this is 
 the way that people are left under false impressions. 
 
 Now, from all we have seen of the terrible nature of 
 the evils which fell upon Ireland in the days of Henry 
 VIII. ; in the days of Elizabeth ; in the days of James 
 I., I ask you, people of America, to set these two 
 thoughts before your mind, contrast them, and give 
 me a fair verdict. 
 
 Is there anything recorded in history more terrible 
 than the persistent, undying resolution so clearly 
 manifested by the English government, to root out, 
 extirpate, and destroy the people of Ireland ? Is 
 there anything recorded in history more unjust than 
 the systematic constitutional robbery of a people 
 whom the Almighty God created in that island, to 
 whom he gave that island, who had the aboriginal 
 right to every inch of Irish soil ? 
 
 On the other hand, can history bring forth a more 
 magnificent spectacle than the calm, firm, united reso- 
 lution with which Ireland stood in defense of her relig- 
 ion, and gave up all things rather than sacrifice what 
 
Ireland under the Tudor s, 95 
 
 she conceived to be the cause of truth? Mr. Froude 
 does not believe that it was the cause of truth. I do 
 not blame him. Every man has a right to his relig- 
 ious opinions. But Ireland believed it was the cause 
 of truth, and Ireland stood for it like one man. 
 
 I speak of all these things only historically. I do 
 not believe in animosity. I am not a believer in bad 
 blood. I do not believe with Mr. Froude that the 
 question of Ireland's difficulties must ever remain 
 without a solution. I do not give it up in despair ; 
 but this I do say, that he has no right, nor has any 
 other man, to come before an audience of America — of 
 America, that has never persecuted in the cause of re- 
 ligion ; of America, that respects the rights even of the 
 meanest citizen upon her imperial soil ; and to ask 
 that American people to sanction by their verdict the 
 robbery and the persecution of which England was 
 guilty. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 IRELAND UNDER CROMWELL. 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: We now approach, in 
 answering Mr. Froude, to some of the most awful 
 periods of our history ; and I confess that I approach 
 this terrific ground with sadness, and that I extremely 
 regret that Mr. Froude should have opened up ques- 
 tions which oblige any Irishman to undergo the 
 pain of heart and the anguish of spirit which the 
 revision of this portion of our history must occasion. 
 The learned gentleman began his third lecture by 
 reminding his audience that he had closed his second 
 with a reference to the rise, the progress, and the col- 
 lapse of the great rebellion, which took place in Ire- 
 land in the year 1641, that is to say, somewhat more 
 than two hundred years ago. He made but a passing 
 allusion to that great event in our history, and that 
 allusion, if he be reported correctly, stated simply that 
 the Irish rebelled in 1641. This is his first statement 
 — that it was a rebellion ; secondly, that this rebellion 
 
Ireland under Cromwell. 97 
 
 ** began in massacre and ended in ruin ; " thirdly, that 
 for nine years the Irish leaders had the destinies of 
 their country in their own hands ; and, fourthly, that 
 these nine years were years of anarchy and slaughter. 
 Nothing, therefore, can be more melancholy than the 
 picture drawn by this learned gentleman of these nine 
 years ! and yet I will venture to say, and I hope I 
 shall be able to prove, that each of these four state- 
 ments is without sufficient historical foundation. My 
 first position is that the movement of 1641 was not a 
 rebellion ; secondly, that it did not begin in massacre, 
 although it ended in ruin ; thirdly, that the Irish lead- 
 ers had not the destiny of their country in their hands 
 during these years ; and, fourthly, whether they had 
 or not, that these years were not a period of anarchy 
 or of mutual slaughter. They were at the opening of 
 a far more terrific period. We must discuss these 
 questions, my friends, calmly and historically. We 
 must look upon them rather like the antiquarian prying 
 into the past, than with the living, warm feelings of 
 men whose blood boils up with the remembrance of 
 so much injustice and so much bloodshed. In order 
 to understand this question fully and fairly, it is neces- 
 sary for us to go back to the historical events of the 
 times. I find, then, that James I., the man who 
 ** planted '* Ulster — that is to say, who confiscated, 
 utterly and entirely, six of the fairest counties in 
 Ireland — an entire province — rooting out the abo- 
 riginal Irish Catholic inhabitants, even to a man, 
 and giving the whole country to Scotch and Eng- 
 
98 Lecture III. 
 
 lish settlers of the Protestant religion, under the 
 condition that they were not to have even as much 
 as an Irish laborer on their grounds, but that they 
 were to banish them away, — that this man died in 
 1625, and was succeeded by his unfortunate son, 
 Charles I. When Charles came to the throne, bred up 
 as he was in the traditions of a monarchy which Henry 
 VIII. had rendered almost absolute, as we know; 
 whose absolute power was still continued by Elizabeth 
 under forms the most tyrannical ; whose absolute 
 power was continued by his own father, James 
 L, he brought with him the most exaggerated ideas 
 of royal privileges and royal supremacy. But during 
 the days of his father, a new spirit had grown up in 
 England and in Scotland. The form which Protest- 
 antism took in Scotland was the hard, uncompromis- 
 ing, and, I will add, cruel form of Calvinism in its 
 most repellent aspect. The men who rose in Scotland 
 in defense of their Presbyterian religion, rose, not 
 against Catholics at all, but against the Episcopalian- 
 Protestants of England. They defended what they 
 called their Kirk, or covenant ; they fought bravely, I 
 acknowledge, for it ; and they ended by establishing it 
 as the religion of Scotland. Now, Charles I. was an 
 Episcopalian-Protestant of the most sincere and de- 
 voted kind. The Parliament of England, in the very 
 first year of Charles, admitted members who were 
 very strongly tinged with Scotch Calvinism, and they 
 at once showed a refractory spirit to their king. He 
 demanded of them certain subsidies, and they refused 
 
Ireland under Cromwell, 99 
 
 him ; he asserted certain sovereign rights, and they 
 denied them. But whilst all this was going on in 
 England, from the year 1630 to the year, let us say, 
 1641, what was taking place in Ireland ? One province 
 of the land had been completely confiscated by 
 James I. Charles was in want of money for his own 
 purposes, and his parliament refused to grant him any ; 
 and the poor, oppressed, down-trodden Catholics of 
 Ireland imagined, naturally enough, that, the king be- 
 ing in difficulties, he would turn to them and perhaps 
 lend them a little countenance, a little favor, if they 
 proclaimed their loyalty and stood by him. Ac- 
 cordingly, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord 
 Falkland, sincerely attached as he was to his roy- 
 al master — hinted to the Catholics, and proposed 
 to them that, as they were under the most terrific 
 penal laws from the days of Elizabeth and of James 
 I., if they should now petition the king, they might 
 get certain graces or concessions granted to them. 
 What were these graces ? They simply involved 
 permission to live in their own land, and permission to 
 worship their God according to the dictates of their 
 own consciences. They asked for nothing more — no- 
 thing more was promised to them. When their peti- 
 tion went before the king, his royal majesty of England 
 issued a proclamation in which he declared that it was 
 his intention and that he had pledged his word to 
 grant to the Catholics and to the people of Ireland 
 certain concessions or indulgences which he called by 
 the name of ''graces.'' No sooner, however, did the 
 
100 Lecture III, 
 
 newly-founded Puritan element in England, and the 
 parliament, that was fighting rebelliously against their 
 king, hear that the slightest relaxation of the penal 
 law was to be granted to the Catholics of Ireland, than 
 they instantly rose and protested that it should not be. 
 Charles, to his eternal disgrace, broke his word with 
 the Catholics of Ireland after they had sent him 
 £ 1 20,000 in acknowledgment of his bounty. More than 
 this. It was suspected that Lord Falkland was too 
 mild a man, too just a man to be allowed to remain as 
 Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and he was recalled, and, 
 after a short lapse, Wentworth, who was afterwards 
 Earl of Strafford, w^as sent to Ireland as Lord-Lieu- 
 tenant. Wentworth, on his arrival, summoned a par- 
 liament and they met in the year 1634. He told them 
 the difficulties the king was in ; he told them how his 
 parliament in England was rebelling against him, and 
 how he looked to his Irish subjects as loyal ; and per- 
 haps he told them that amongst Catholics loyalty is 
 not a mere sentiment, but it is an unshaken principle, 
 resting on conscience and assured through the church. 
 And then he assured them that Charles, the King of 
 England, still intended to keep his word, and to grant 
 them their concessions or their graces. Next came the 
 usual demand for money, and the Irish Parliament 
 granted six subsidies of ^50,000 each. Strafford wrote 
 to the King of England congratulating him on having 
 got so much money out of the Irish, and confessing 
 that he had only expected subsidies of ;£'30,ooo, whilst 
 they granted subsidies of ;^50,ooo. The parliament 
 
Ireland under CromzvelL lOi 
 
 met the following year, in 1635, and what do you think 
 was the fulfillment of the royal promise to the Catho- 
 lics of Ireland ? Strafford had got the money. He 
 did not wish to compromise his master, the king, so 
 he took it upon himself, and fixed upon his memory 
 the indelible shame and disgrace of breaking the word 
 which he had pledged, and disappointing the Catholics 
 of Ireland. Then, in 1635, the following year, the real 
 character of this man came out, and what do you think 
 was the measure that he proposed ? He instituted a 
 commission with the express purpose of confiscating, in 
 addition to Ulster — that was already gone — the whole 
 province of Connaught, so as not to leave an Irishman 
 or a Catholic one single inch of ground in that land. 
 This he called '^ The Commission of Defective Titles.'* 
 They were commissioned to inquire into the title every 
 man had to his property, and to inquire into it with 
 the express and avowed purpose of finding a flaw in it, 
 so that they could confiscate it to the crown of Eng- 
 land. Now, remember how much was gone already, 
 my friends : the whole of Ulster was confiscated by 
 James I. ; the same king had taken Longford from 
 the O'Farrells, who owned it from time immemorial ; 
 had seized upon Wicklow and taken it from the 
 O'Tooles and O'Byrnes ; had taken the northern part 
 of the county Wexford from the O'Cavanaghs, and 
 Kings county from the O'Malloys. Now, with the 
 whole of Ulster, and the better part of Leinster, in 
 his hands, this minister of Charles comes in and insti- 
 tutes a commission, by which he was to obtain the 
 
I02 Lecture III, 
 
 whole of the province of Connaught, root out the na- 
 tive Irish population, expel every man who owned a 
 rood of land in the province, and reduce them to beg- 
 gary, starvation, and death. Here is a description of his 
 plan as given by Leland, a historian who is hostile to 
 Ireland*s faith, and to Ireland*s nationality. Leland 
 thus describes the business: ** His project," he says, 
 " was nothing less than to subvert the title of every 
 estate in every part of Connaught ; a project which, 
 when first proposed in the late reign, was received 
 with horror and amazement, but which suited the un- 
 dismayed and enterprising genius of Lord Wentworth." 
 Accordingly, he began in the county of Roscommon, 
 he passed from Roscommon to Sligo, then to Mayo, 
 and then to Galway. The only way in which b. title could 
 be upset was by having a jury of twelve men to agree 
 to .their verdict as to whether the title was valid or not. 
 Strafford began by picking his jury and packing them. 
 The old story over again. The old policy which has 
 been followed down to our own time, the policy of pack- 
 ing a perjured jury. He succeeded. He told the jury 
 before the trials began that he expected them to find 
 a verdict for the king, and between bribing and threat- 
 ening them he got juries that found for him until he 
 came into my own county of Galway. For the honor 
 of old Galway be it said that as soon as this com- 
 mission arrived in that county they could not find 
 twelve jurors in the county Galway to pass a verdict 
 to confiscate the property of their fellow-citizens. 
 What was the result ? The result was that the county 
 
Irelafid under CromwelL ' 103 
 
 Galway jurors were called to Dublin before the Castle 
 Chamber ; every man of them was fined ^4,000, and 
 was put into prison until the fine was paid. Every 
 inch of their property was taken from them, and the 
 High Sheriff of the county Galway, not being a wealthy 
 man, being fined ;£" 1,000, died in jail because he was 
 not able to pay his fine. More than this. Not con- 
 tent with threatening the jury and coercing them, my 
 Lord Strafford sent to the judges and told them they 
 were to get four shillings in the pound for the value 
 of every single property confiscated to the crown of 
 England ; and then he boasted publicly of it and said : 
 ^* I have made the Chief Baron and the other justices 
 attend to this business as if it were their own private 
 concern." This is the way Ireland was ruled, and this 
 is the kind of rule that the learned English historian 
 comes to America to ask the honest and the upright 
 citizens of this free country to endorse by their ver- 
 dict, and thereby to make themselves accomplices in 
 England's robbery. In the same year this Strafford 
 instituted another tribunal in Ireland which he called 
 *^ The Court of Wards/' Do you know what this was? 
 It was found that the Irish people, gentle and simple, 
 were very unwilling to become Protestants. I have not 
 a harsh word to say of the Protestants, but this I will 
 say, that every high-minded Protestant in the world 
 must admire the strength and the fidelity with which 
 Irishmen, because of their conscience, cling to their 
 ancient faith and forms of belief. This tribunal was 
 instituted in order to take the heirs of Catholic gentle- 
 
I04 Lectiire III, 
 
 men and bring them up in the Protestant religion, and 
 it was to this Court of Wards that we owe the signifi- 
 cant fact that some of the most ancient and the best 
 names of Ireland — the names of men whose ancestors 
 fought for faith and fatherland — are now Protestants, * 
 and the enemies of their Catholic fellow-subjects. It was 
 by this, by such means as this, that the men of my own 
 name became Protestant. There was not a drop of 
 Protestant blood in the veins of the Dun Earl or Red 
 Earl of Clanricarde. There was not a drop of other 
 than Catholic blood in the veins of the heroic Burkes 
 that fought during the long centuries that went before 
 this time. There was no Protestant blood in the 
 O'Briens of Munster, nor in the glorious O'Donnells 
 and O'Neills of Ulster. Let no Protestant American 
 citizen here imagine that I am speaking in disdain of 
 him or of his religion. No ! But as a historian I am 
 pointing out the means — which every high-minded man 
 must pronounce to be nefarious — by which the aris- 
 tocracy of Ireland were obliged to change their relig- 
 ion. The Irish meantime waited, and waited in vain, 
 for the fulfillment of the king's promise of a concession 
 or a grace, as it was called. At length matters grew 
 desperate between Charles and the parliament, and in 
 the year 1640 Charles again renewed his promise to 
 the Irish people and their parliament, which gave him 
 four subsidies, eight thousand men, and one thousand 
 horse, to fight against the Scots, who had rebelled 
 against him. Earl Strafford went home rejoicing that 
 he had got these subsidies and this body of men ; 
 
Ireland under Cromwell, 105 
 
 but no sooner did he arrive in England than the par- 
 liament, now in rebellion, laid hold of him, and in that 
 same year, 1640, Strafford's head was cut off, and it 
 would be a strange Irishman that would regret it. 
 Meantime the people of Scotland rose in armed rebel- 
 lion against their king. They marched into England, 
 and what do you think they made by their movement? 
 They got the full enjoyment of their religion, which was 
 not Protestant, but Presbyterian ; they got ;^30o,ooo, 
 and they got for several months ;^85o a day to support 
 their army. Then they retired into their own country, 
 having achieved the purpose for which they had re- 
 belled. In the meantime the Catholics in Ireland 
 were ground into the very dust. What wonder, I ask 
 you, that, seeing that the king was afraid of his Eng- 
 lish people, although personally inclined to grant 
 these graces — he had declared that he had wished to 
 grant them, he had pledged his royal word to grant 
 them, the Irish had every evidence that if the King 
 were free he would grant them — what wonder, I say, 
 that the Irish, seeing all this and groaning under atro- 
 cious laws, should have made an effort to right them- 
 selves. The king was not free, because the parlia- 
 ment and the Puritan faction in England were in re- 
 bellion. And so the Irish said, and naturally: ^'Our 
 king is not free ; if he were he would be just. Let 
 us arise in the name of the king and assert our own 
 rights." They arose like one man. Every Irishman, 
 every Catholic in Ireland, arose on the 23d of Octo- 
 ber, 1 641, with the exception of the Catholic lords of 
 
 5* 
 
io6 Lecture IIL 
 
 the Pale. And now I give you the reasons for this 
 rising, as recorded in the memoirs of Lord Castle- 
 haven, who was by no means prejudiced in favor of 
 the Irishmen. He tells us they rose for six rea- 
 sons : ''• First, because they were generally looked down 
 upon as a conquered nation, seldom or never trusted 
 like natural or free-born subjects." The old feeling 
 still coming up, dear friends. The very first reason 
 given by this Englishman why the Irish people 
 rose was that the English people treated them 
 contemptuously. Oh, when will England learn to 
 treat her subjects or her friends with common re- 
 spect ? — when will that proud Anglo-Saxon haughti- 
 ness condescend to urbanity and kindness in the treat- 
 ment of those around them ? I said it in my first lec- 
 ture, I said it in my second lecture, and I prove it in 
 this ; that it was the contempt as much as the hatred 
 of the Englishman for the Irishman that lay at the 
 root, and lies at the root to-day, of that bitter spirit 
 and terrible antagonism that exist between these two 
 nations. The second reason given by my Lord Cas- 
 tlehaven is that ^' the Irish saw that six whole coun- 
 ties in Ulster were escheated to the crown, and little 
 or nothing was bestowed on the natives, but the great- 
 er part bestowed by King James on his own country- 
 men, the Scotch." The third reason is, that in Straf- 
 ford's time the crown laid claim to the counties of 
 Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, and Cork, and some 
 parts of Tipperary, Limerick, Wicklow and others. 
 The fourth reason was, that '* great severities were 
 
Ireland under Cromwell. 107 
 
 used against Roman Catholics, which, to a people so 
 fond of their religion as the Irish are, was no small in- 
 ducement to make them, whilst there was an oppor- 
 tunity, stand upon their guard/* The fifth reason was 
 that '* they see how the Scots, by pretending griev- 
 ances and taking up arms to get them redressed, 
 had not only gained divers privileges and immunities, 
 but got ;£'300,000 for their visit to England, besides 
 ;£"85o a day for several months together. And the 
 last reason was that they saw a storm brewing, as the 
 misunderstanding arose between the king and the par- 
 liament. They believed that the king would grant 
 them anything they in reason could demand ; at least 
 more now than they could otherwise expect." Now, 
 I ask you, were not these reasons sufficient? I appeal 
 to the people of America, I appeal to men who know 
 what civil and religious liberty means, for a high- 
 spirited people whose spirit was never broken, never 
 yielded ; for a people not inferior to the Anglo-Saxon, 
 either in gifts of intellect or in bodily energy ; for a 
 people thus forsaken, down-trodden, as our fathers 
 were, would not one, any one, of these reasons be 
 sufficient justification to rise? And had they not an 
 accumulation of all those causes, which would have 
 made them the meanest of mankind if they had not 
 seized upon that opportunity? An English Protestant 
 writer of the time, writing in '^ Howell's Hibernicus," 
 in 1643, says, ^' That they had sundry grievances and 
 grounds of complaint, both touching their estates and 
 their consciences, which they pretended to be far 
 
io8 Lecture II L 
 
 greater than those of the Scotch ; for they fell to 
 think that if the Scotch were suffered to introduce a 
 new religion, was it reason they should be punished 
 in the exercise of their old, which they glory never to 
 have altered." There was another reason for the re- 
 volt, my friends, and a very competent one, and it was 
 this : Charles had the weakness and the folly, I can 
 call it nothing else, to leave at the head of the Irish 
 cause two Lord Justices named Sir John Borlass and 
 Sir William Parsons. These were both ardent Puri- 
 tans and partisans of the parliament ; they were anx- 
 ious to see the fall of the English monarch ; they were 
 his bitterest enemies, and they thought he would be 
 embarrassed m his fight with the parliament in Eng- 
 land by a revolution in Ireland, so the very men who 
 were the guardians of the State lent themselves to 
 promote the revolution by every means in their power. 
 For instance, six months before this revolution broke 
 out, Charles gave them notice that he had received 
 intelligence that the Irish were going to rise ; they 
 took no notice whatever of the king's advertisement ; 
 the Lords of the Pale, who refused to join the Irish 
 people in their uprising, appealed to the Justices in 
 Dublin for protection, and it was refused them ; they 
 asked to be allowed in the city, that they might be 
 saved from the incursions of the Irish, and that per- 
 mission was refused them ; they were forced to stay 
 in their castles and in their houses, and the moment 
 that any of the Irish in rebellion came near, their houses 
 and castles were declared forfeited to the State. And 
 
Ireland under CromwelL 109 
 
 so the English Catholic Lords of the Pale — the Lords 
 of Gormanstown, Howth, Trimbleton, and many others, 
 were actually forced by the government to join hands 
 with the Irish, and to draw their swords in the national 
 cause. Moreover, the Irish knew that their friends 
 and fellow-countrymen were earning distinction and 
 honor and glory upon all the battle-fields of Europe, 
 in the service of Spain, France, and Austria, and they 
 hoped in that rising that these their countrymen would 
 help them in the hour of their need. 
 
 Accordingly, on the 23d of October, 1641, they rose. 
 What was the first thing they did ? According to Mr. 
 Froude, the first thing they did was to massacre all the 
 Protestants that they could lay their hands on. Well, 
 thank God, this is not the fact. The very first thing 
 that their leader. Sir Phelim O'Neill, did, was to issue 
 a proclamation, on the very day of the rising, which 
 spread through all Ireland, in which he declared : 
 ** These are to intimate and make known unto all per- 
 sons whatsoever, in and through the whole country, 
 that the true intent and meaning of us whose names 
 are hereunto subscribed, that the first assembling of 
 us is nowise intended against our Sovereign Lord the 
 King, nor hurt of any of his subjects, either English 
 or Scotch, but only for the defense and liberty of our- 
 selves and the Irish natives of this kingdom. And we 
 further declare, that whatsoever hurt hitherto h?th 
 been done to any person shall be speedily repaired ; 
 and we will that every person forthwith, after proc- 
 lamation hereof, make their speedy repair unto th^ir 
 
I lo Lecture III, 
 
 own houses under pain of death, that no further hurt 
 be done unto any one under the like pain, and that this 
 be proclaimed in all places. At Dunga^inon^ 23 October^ 
 1641. — Phelim O'Neill." 
 
 Did they keep this declaration of theirs ? Most 
 inviolably. I assert, in the name of history, that they 
 did not massacre the Protestants, and I will prove it 
 from Protestant authority. We find despatches from 
 the Irish Government to the government in England, of 
 the 27th of that same month, in which they gave them 
 the account of the rising of the Irish people ; there 
 they complained, telling how the Irish stripped their 
 Protestant fellow-citizens, took their cattle, took their 
 houses, and took their property — but not one single 
 word of complaint about one drop of bloodshed. And 
 if they took their cattle and houses and property, you 
 must remember that they only took back what was 
 their own. A very short time afterwards the massacre 
 began ; and who began it ? The Protestant Ulster 
 settlers fled from the Irish ; they brought their lives 
 with them, at least, and they entered the town of Car- 
 rickfergus, where they found a garrison of Scotch 
 Puritans. Now, in the confusion that arose, the poor 
 country-people, frightened, all fled into an obscure 
 part of the country, near Carrickfergus, to a peninsula 
 sea called Island Magee. They were there collected 
 for the purposes of safety to the number of more than 
 three thousand. The very first thing these English 
 Puritans and a Scotch garrison did, when they came 
 together, was to steal out of Carrickfergus in the night- 
 
Ireland under CromwelL 1 1 1 
 
 time, go into the midst of that innocent and unarmed 
 people, and they slaughtered man, woman and child, 
 until they left three thousand dead behind them. And 
 we have the authority of Leland, an English Protest- 
 ant historian, who expressly says, *' This was the first 
 massacre committed m. Ireland on either side." How 
 in the name of heaven can any man so learned and, I 
 make no doubt, so truthful as Mr. Froude — how can 
 he, in the name of history, assert that these people be- 
 gan by massacring thirty-eight thousand of his fel- 
 low-countrymen — fellow-religionists, when we had in 
 the month of December, four months after — we had a 
 commission issued by the Lord Justice in Dublin to 
 the Dean of Kilmore, and to seven other Protestant 
 clergymen, to make diligent inquiry about the English 
 and Scotch Protestants who were robbed and plunder- 
 ed, but not one single inquiry — not one word about 
 all those who were murdered ? The Catholics were 
 urged into rebellion, and the Lords Justices were often 
 heard to say that the more there were in rebellion, the 
 more lands would be forfeited to them. ** Some time 
 before the rebellion broke out," says Carte, ^'Sir John 
 Clotworthy declared, in a speech in the English House 
 of Commons, that the conversion of the Irish Papists 
 would only be effected by the sword in one hand and 
 the Bible in the other, and Mr. Pym gave out that 
 they would not leave a priest in Ireland." Sir Wm. 
 Parsons (one of the Lord Justices) positively asserted 
 before so many witnesses at a public entertainment 
 that within twelve months no Catholic should be seen 
 
1 1 2 Lecture III, 
 
 in Ireland. It was the old story — it was the old adage 
 of James I : ^® ^' Root out the Irish; give Ireland to 
 English Protestants and Puritans and you will re- 
 generate the land ! " Oh ! from such regeneration, 
 for my own land, or any other land or people, good* 
 Lord, deliver us ! "' This rebellion," says Mr. Froude, 
 *' began in massacre and ended in ruin." It ended in 
 ruin most terribly; but if it began in massacre, Mr. 
 Froude, you must acknowledge as historical truth that 
 the massacre was on the part of your countrymen and 
 your religionists. Then the war began — a war far more 
 religious than national ; for, in truth, the emancipation 
 of Ireland from the English yoke was never contem- 
 plated nor mentioned throughout. It was an uprising 
 of the Catholics against the sanguinary spirit of Puri- 
 tanism, which openly threatened them with utter de- 
 struction. Dr. Warner tells us that it was evident, 
 from a letter of the Lords Justices to the Earl of Lei- 
 cester, the Lord Lieutenant, ^* that they hoped for an 
 extirpation, not of mere Irish only, but of all the old 
 English families that were Roman Catholic." It was 
 a war that continued for seven years ; it was a war in 
 which the Irish chieftains had not the destinies of their 
 nation in their own hands, as Mr. Froude asserts ; but 
 were obliged to fight, and to fight like men, in order 
 to try and achieve a better destiny and a better future 
 for their people. Who can say that the Irish chieftains 
 held the destinies of Ireland in their hands during these 
 nine years when they had to meet every successive 
 armv that came to them, inflamed with reliirious hatred 
 
Ireland under Cromwell, 113 
 
 and enmity, but animated, I must say, by a spirit of 
 bravery of which the world has seldom seen the like ? 
 Then he adds, ^^ That these were years of anarchy and 
 mutual slaughter." Now let us consider the history 
 of the event. No sooner had the English Lords of 
 the Pale, who were all Catholics, joined the Irish, than 
 they at once turned to the Catholic bishops who were 
 in the land. They called them together in synod, and 
 on the loth of May, 1642, the bishops of Ireland, the 
 lords of Ireland, the gentry and commoners met to- 
 gether and founded what is called The Confederation 
 of Kilkenny. Amongst their numbers they selected 
 for the supreme council, three archbishops, two bish- 
 ops, four lords, and fifteen commoners. These men 
 were to remain in permanent session, governing the 
 country, making laws, watching over the army, and, 
 above all, preventing cruelty, robbery, and murder. A 
 regular government was formed, and they actually es- 
 tablished a mint, and coined there money for the Irish 
 nation. They established an army under Owen Roe 
 O'Neill, who commanded the Ulster troops, Thomas 
 Preston, who took the command in Leinster, Gerald 
 Barry in Munster, and John Burke as Lieutenant-Gen- 
 eral for Connaught. During the first month they 
 gained some successes. Most of the principal cities in 
 Ireland opened their gates to them ; the garrisons 
 were carefully saved from slaughter, and the moment 
 their opponents laid down their arms, their lives were 
 as sacred as that of any man in the ranks of their own 
 army. Not a drop of blood was shed by the Irish with 
 
114 Lecture III. 
 
 any sort of connivance on the part of the government 
 of the country — that i^ to say, the Supreme Council 
 of Kilkenny. I defy any man to prove that there 
 was a single act which that Supreme Council enacted, 
 which could sanction or approve, directly or indirectly, 
 deeds of violence. Now, after a few months of suc- 
 cesses, the army of the Confederation experienced 
 some reverses. The Puritan party was recruited and 
 fortified by English armies coming in, and the com- 
 mand in Dublin was given to a gentleman whose name 
 ought to be familiar to every Irishman. His name was 
 Sir Charles Coote, and I want to read some of that 
 gentleman's exploits to you. ** Sir Charles," and mind 
 you this is by Clarendon, no friend of Ireland, ^' be- 
 sides plundering and burning the town of Clontarf, at 
 that time did massacre sixteen of the towns-people, 
 men and women, besides three suckling infants ; and 
 in that very same week fifty-six men, women and chil- 
 dren, in the village of Bullough, being frightened at 
 what had been done in Clontarf, went to sea to 
 shun the fury of a party of soldiers which had come 
 out of Dublin, under Col. Clifford, and being pursued 
 by the soldiers in boats, they were overtaken and 
 thrown overboard." Sir William Burliss advised the 
 governor, Sir Charles Coote, to the burning of corn, 
 and to give man, woman and child to the sword. Sir 
 Arthur Loft us writes to the same purpose and same 
 effect. An edict of the council at that time will tell 
 you in what spirit our Protestant friends waged their 
 wars with us : ^' It is resolved that it is fit that his 
 
I 
 
 Ireland under Cromwell. 115 
 
 Lordship do endeavor " with his Majesty's forces (this 
 was given to Earl Ormond) "• to wound, kill, slay and 
 destroy, by all the ways and means that he may, all the 
 said rebels and their adherents and relievers, and burn, 
 spoil, waste, consume, destroy and demolish all the 
 places, towns, and houses where the rebels are or have 
 been relieved or harbored, and all the hay and corn 
 therein, and to kill and destroy all the men there in- 
 habiting capable to bear arms. Given at the Castle of 
 Dublin, on the 23d of February, 1641." And signed by 
 six precious names. Listen to this : Sir Arthur 
 Loftus, Governor of Naas, marched out with a party 
 of horse, which was joined by another party sent 
 from Dublin by the Marquis of Ormond, and 
 they killed such of the Irish as they met, without 
 stopping to inquire whether they were rebels or 
 not. Oh, my friends ! Hsten to this : " But the 
 most considerable slaughter was in a great strait of 
 furze seated on a hill where the people of several 
 villages, taking the alarm, had sheltered themselves. 
 Now, Sir Arthur, having invested the hill, set the 
 furze on fire on all sides, where the people, being in 
 considerable numbers, were all burned or killed, men, 
 women, and children. I saw," says Castlehaven, ^^ the 
 bodies and the furze still burning." In the years 
 1641 and '42, many thousands of the poor innocent 
 people of the county of Dublin, shunning and fearing 
 the English soldiers, fled into the thickets and furze, 
 which the soldiers actually fired, killing as many as 
 endeavored to escape, or forcing them back again to 
 
ii6 Lecture III, 
 
 be burned. And for the rest of the inhabitants, for 
 the most part, they died of famine. Not only by land, 
 where we read of sometimes seven thousand of our 
 people, men, women, and children, without discrimina- 
 tion, being destroyed by these demons as recorded, 
 by the historian Borlase, who tells us, speaking of Sir 
 William Coles* regiment : ** Starved and famished of the 
 vulgar sort, whose goods were seized on by this regi- 
 ment, seven thousand ; ** but even by sea, we read 
 that there was a law made if any Irishmen were found 
 on board ships by his Majesty's cruisers they were to 
 be destroyed. *^ The Earl of Warwick [this is in 
 Clarendon's account] and the officers under him at 
 sea, had, as often as he met with any Irish frigates, or 
 such freebooters as sailed under commission, taken 
 all the seamen who became prisoners to them of the 
 nation of Ireland, and bound them back to back and 
 thrown them overboard into the sea without distinc- 
 tion as to their condition, if they were Irish.** In this 
 cruel manner very many poor men perished daily 
 of which the king said nothing, because his Majesty 
 could not complain of it without being concerned in 
 favor of the rebels in Ireland. Again, the Marquis 
 of Ormond sent Captain Anthony Willoughby with 
 one hundred and fifty men, who had formerly served 
 in the fort of Galway, from thence to Bristol. The 
 ship that carried them was taken by a Captain Swan- 
 ley, who was so inhuman as to throw seventy of the 
 soldiers overboard, under the pretense that they were 
 Irishmen, although they had faithfully served his 
 
Ireland under Cromwell, 1 1 / 
 
 Majesty against the rebels there in the time of the 
 war. You will ask if that captain was punished 
 for the slaughter. Here is the punishment he 
 got. In June, 1644, we read in the journal of the 
 English House of Commons, that Captain Swanley 
 was called into the House and had given to him, by 
 the English House of Commons, for his good ser- 
 vice, a chain of gold of ;^200 value, and Captain 
 Smith had another of ;^ioo value. Sir Richard Gren- 
 ville was very much esteemed by the Earl of Leices- 
 ter, who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and 
 more still by the Parliament, for the signal act 
 of cruelty he had committed upon the Irish, hang- 
 ing old men who were bedridden because they would 
 not discover where their money was, and old women, 
 some of whom he killed after he had plundered them 
 and found less than he had expected. In a word, they 
 committed atrocities which I am ashamed and afraid 
 to mention. They tossed infants taken from their 
 mothers' bosom, upon their bayonets. Sir Charles 
 Coote saw one of his soldiers playing with a child, 
 throwing it into the air and then spitting it upon his 
 bayonet, and he laughed and said he enjoyed such 
 frolic. They brought children into the world before 
 their time by the Caesarian operation of the sword, 
 and the children thus brought forth by them into 
 misery from out of the womb of their dead mothers 
 they immolated and sacrificed in the most cruel and 
 terrible manner. I am afraid, I say again, afraid of 
 your blood and mine, to tell one-tenth, aye, one-hun- 
 
ii8 Lecture III, 
 
 dredth part of the cruelties that these terrible men 
 committed upon our race. 
 
 Nqw I ask you to contrast with all this, the man- 
 ner in which the Irish troops and the Irish people be- 
 haved, " I took Athy by storm/' says Lord Castle-^ 
 haven, " with all the garrison, 700 men, prisoners. I 
 made a present of them to Cromwell, desiring him by 
 letter that he would do the like with me, as any of 
 mine should fall into his power. But he little valued 
 my civility, for in a few days after he besieged Gow- 
 ran, and the soldiers . . . giving up the place with 
 the officers, he caused the Governor and some other 
 officers to be put to death.** 
 
 Sir William St. Leger, going down into Munster, 
 seems to have slaughtered man, woman, and child, upon 
 his march. Among others, a man named Philip Ryan, 
 who was the principal farmer of that place, he put to 
 death without the slightest hesitation, but some of 
 Philip Ryan's friends and relatives retaliated somewhat 
 on the English, and there was fear that the Catholic peo- 
 ple would massacre all the Protestant inhabitants of the 
 place. Now mark what follows: **A11 the rest of the 
 English'' (this is in Cartes' life of Ormond), *^ All the rest 
 of the English were saved by the inhabitants of that 
 place in their houses, and had the goods which they 
 confided to them safely restored. Dr. Samuel Pullen, 
 the Protestant Chancellor of Cashel, and the Dean of 
 Clonfert, with his wife and children, was preserved by 
 Father James Saul, a Jesuit. Several other Romish 
 priests distinguished themselves on this occasion by 
 
h'eland under Ci'omwelL 119 
 
 their endeavors to save the English, particularly Father 
 Joseph Everard, and Redmond English, both Francis- 
 can friars, who hid some of them in their chapel, and 
 even under their altar. The English who were thus 
 preserved were according to their desire safely con- 
 veyed into the county of Cork, by a guard of the Irish 
 inhabitants of Cashel. Now, my friends, the war went 
 on from 1641 to 1649, with varying success. Cardinal 
 Runuccini was sent over by the Pope to preside over 
 the Supreme Council of the Confederation of Kilken- 
 ny, some time before the news came to Ireland that 
 gladdened the nation's heart, namely, that the illus- 
 trious Owen Roe O'Neill had landed upon the coast 
 of Ulster. This man was one of the most distin- 
 guished officers in the Spanish service, at a time when 
 the Spanish infantry were acknowledged to be the 
 finest troops in the world. He landed in Ireland. 
 He organized an army, drilled them and armed them 
 — though imperfectly — but he was a host in himself; 
 and in the second year after his arrival he drew up his 
 army, and met General Munro, and his English forces, 
 at the ford of Benburb, on the Blackwater. The bat- 
 tle began in the morning, and raged throughout the 
 early hours of the day, and before the evening sun 
 had set, England's main and best army was flying in 
 confusion, and three thousand two hundred and forty- 
 three of their best soldiers were stretched upon the 
 field, and choking up the ford of Benburb, whilst the 
 Irish soldier stood triumphant upon the field which 
 his genius and his valor had won. Partly through the 
 
120 Lecture III. 
 
 treachery of Ormond and Preston, partly and mainly 
 through the agency of the English lords, who were 
 coquetting with the English government, the confed- 
 eration began \o experience the most disastrous defeats, 
 and Ireland's cause was already broken and almost lost, 
 when, in the year 1649, Oliver Cromwell arrived in 
 Ireland. Mr. Froude says, and truly, that he did not 
 come to make war with rosewater, but with the thick, 
 warm blood of the Irish people. Mr. Froude prefaces the 
 introduction of Oliver Cromwell to Ireland by telling us 
 that the Lord Protector was a great friend of Ireland — 
 a liberal-minded man that interfered with no man's 
 liberty of conscience, and he adds that if Cromwell's 
 policy was carried out, *^ in all probability I would not 
 be here speaking to you of our differences with Ire- 
 land to-day." He adds, moreover, that Cromwell had 
 formed a design for the pacification of Ireland, which 
 ** would have made future trouble there impossible." 
 What was this design ? Lord Macaulay tells us what 
 this design was. Cromwell's avowed purpose was to 
 end all difficulties in Ireland, whether they arose from 
 the land question or from the religious question, by 
 putting a total and entire end to the Irish race by 
 exterminating them from the face of the earth. This 
 was the admirable policy, my friends, in order to pacify 
 Ireland and create peace ; for the best way, and the 
 simplest way, to keep any man quiet is by cutting his 
 throat. The dead do not speak, the dead do not 
 move, the dead do not trouble any one. Cromwell 
 came to destroy the Irish race, and the Irish Catholic 
 
Ireland under Cromwell, 1 2 1 
 
 faith of the people ; and so to put an end at once to 
 all claims for land, and to all disputes arising out of a 
 religious persecution. But I ask this learned gentle- 
 man, does he imagine that the people of America are 
 either so ignorant or so wicked as to accept the mon- 
 strous proposition that the man who came into Ireland 
 with such an avowed purpose as this, could be declared 
 to be the friend of the real interests of the Irish peo- 
 ple? Does he imagine there is no intelligence in 
 America ; that there is no manhood in America ; that 
 there is no love for freedom, and for life in America? 
 and the man must be an enemy of religion and of life 
 itself before such a man can sympathize with the 
 blood-stained Oliver Cromwell. These words of the 
 historian, I regret to say, sound like bitter irony and 
 mockery in the ears of a people whose fathers Crom- 
 well came to destroy. *^But," he says, ^^ the Lord 
 Protector did not interfere with any man's conscience. 
 The Irish," he says, '^demanded liberty of conscience. 
 * I interfere with no man's conscience,' says the Lord 
 Protector, * but if by liberty of conscience you Catholics 
 mean having a priest and the Mass, I can tell you you 
 cannot have this, and you never will have it as long as 
 the Parliament of England has power ! ' " Now, I ask 
 you, what do these words mean? To grant the Cath- 
 olics liberty of conscience ; their consciences telling 
 them that their first and very greatest duty is the 
 hearing of the Mass — to grant them liberty of con- 
 science, and then to deny them the priest and their 
 Mass. Surely it is a contradiction in words and an 
 
122 Lecture III, 
 
 insult to intelligence to propound so monstrous a 
 proposition ! *^ But/' says Mr. Froude, ^* you must un- 
 derstand me. Of course I acknowledge the Mass to 
 be an ancient and beautiful rite ; but you must re- 
 member that in Cromwell's mind the Mass only meant 
 a system that was shedding blood all over Europe ; a 
 system of the Church that never knew mercy, but 
 slaughtered the people everywhere ; and, therefore, he 
 was resolved to have none of it." Ah ! my friends, if 
 the Mass was the symbol of slaughter, Oliver Crom- 
 well would have had more sympathy with the Mass. 
 
 And so the historian seeks to justify the cruelty in 
 Ireland against the Catholics by alleging cruelty on 
 the part of the Catholics against their Protestant fel- 
 low-subjects in other lands. Now, this word of the 
 historian he has repeated over and over again in many 
 of his writings at other times and in other places, and* 
 I may as well put an end to this. Mr. Froude says : 
 " I hold the Catholic Church accountable for all the 
 blood that the Duke of Alva shed in the Nether- 
 lands ; " and I say to Mr. Froude; I deny it. I can- 
 not allow the Catholic Church to be made accountable 
 for the acts of Alva or of his master, Charles V., or of 
 any other emperor, general, or scheming politician, 
 were he a cardinal, a bishop, or any other. I never 
 will accept a Richelieu, a Wolscy, or a Mazzarin, as re- 
 flecting either the genius or spirit of Catholicity ; and 
 as to Charles V. and his servant Alva, we all know that 
 they were perfectly willing to sack Rome and oppress 
 the Pope whenever it suited their political purposes. 
 
Ireland under CroinwelL 123 
 
 Alva fought in the Netherlands against subjects that 
 rebelled against the King of Spain. Alva fought in 
 the Netherlands against a people, the first principles 
 of whose new religion seemed to be an uprising against 
 authority ; of the State questions the Catholic 
 Church had nothing to say. If Alva shed the blood 
 of the rebels, and if these rebels happened to be Prot- 
 estants, there is no reason for fathering the shedding 
 of that blood upon the Catholic Church. Mr. Froude 
 says that the Catholic Church is answerable for the 
 blood that was shed in the massacre of St. Bartholo- 
 mew's Day under Marie de Medicis in France. I deny 
 it. The woman who gave that order had no sympathy 
 for the Catholic Church. It was altogether a State 
 measure. She had France divided into factions, and 
 she endeavored by court intrigue and villainy of her 
 own — for a most villainous woman she was — to stifle 
 the opposition of certain people with blood. The rep- 
 resentations that were made in Rome were that the 
 king's life was in terrible danger, and that that life 
 was preserved by heaven ; and Rome sang a te demn 
 for the safety of the king and not for the shedding of 
 the blood of the Huguenots. And then among these 
 Huguenots there were Catholics who were slain be- 
 cause they were in the opposite division and faction. 
 This proves that the Catholic Church was not answer- 
 able for the shedding of such blood. But, on the 
 other hand, the blood that was shed in Ireland was 
 shed exclusively on account of religion at this particu- 
 lar time; for when, in 1643, Charles I. made a treaty 
 
124 Lecture IIL 
 
 for a cessation of hostilities with the Irish through the 
 confederation of Kilkenny, the EngHsh Parliament, 
 as soon as they heard that the king had ceased hostili- 
 ties for a time with their Irish patriotic fellow-subjects, 
 at once came in and said : *' September 20, 1643. It 
 was resolved, upon the question, that this house doth 
 hold that a present cessation of arms with the rebels 
 in Ireland is destructive to the Protestant religion." 
 
 I regret to say, my Protestant friends, that the men 
 of 1643, the members of the Puritan House of Parlia- 
 ment in England, have fastened upon that form of 
 religion the formal argument and reason why Irish 
 blood was to flow in torrents — lest the Protestant 
 religion might suffer. In this day of ours we are en- 
 deavoring to put away from us all sectarian bigotry, 
 and we deplore the faults committed by our fathers 
 on both sides. Mr. Froude deplores the blood that 
 was shed, and so do I. But, my friends, it is a his- 
 torical question, resting upon historic fact and evi- 
 dence, and I am bound to appeal to history as well as 
 my learned antagonist, and to discriminate and put 
 back the word which he puts out, namely, *' that tolera- 
 tion is the genius of Protestantism." He makes this 
 astounding assertion in his third lecture, that persecu- 
 tion was hostile to the genius of Protestantism. Nay, he 
 goes further and says, speaking of the Mass, that '' the 
 Catholic Church has learned to borrow one beautiful 
 gem from the crown of her adversary — she has learned 
 to respect the rights of conscience in others." I wish 
 that the learned gentleman's statement could be more 
 
Irela7td under CromwelL 1 2 5 
 
 fully proved by history. Oh, how much I desire that 
 in saying these words he had spoken historic truth. 
 No doubt he believes what he says ; but I ask him, 
 and I ask every Protestant here to-night, at what 
 time, in what age, in what land, has Protestantism 
 ever been in the ascendant without persecuting the 
 Catholics who were around them? I say it not in 
 bitterness, but I say it simply as historic truth. I 
 cannot find in the records of history during these ages 
 up to a few years ago any time when Protestants in 
 Ireland, in Sweden, in Germany, or anywhere else, gave 
 the slightest toleration, or even permission to live 
 when they could take life from their Catholic fellow- 
 subjects. Even to-day where is the strongest spirit 
 of religious persecution? Is in not in Protestant 
 Sweden? Is it not in Protestant Denmark? Who 
 to-day are persecuting, I ask you? Is it Catholics? 
 No ! but Protestant Bismarck in Germany. 
 
 All this I say with regret and shame. I am not 
 only a Catholic, but a priest ; not only a priest, but a 
 monk ; not only a monk, but a Dominican monk ; and 
 from out of the depths of my soul I repel and re- 
 pudiate the principle of religious persecution for any 
 cause, in any land. Oliver, the apostle of blessings to 
 Ireland, landed in 1649. He besieged Drogheda, 
 defended by Sir Arthur Aston and by a brave garri- 
 son, and when he had breached the walls, when they 
 found their position was no longer tenable, they 
 asked, in the military language of the day, that they 
 would be spared and quarter given. That quarter 
 
126 Lecture III, 
 
 was promised to all the men who ceased fighting 
 and laid down their a^-ms. ** All the officers and 
 soldiers of Cromwell's army promised quarter to such 
 as should lay down their arms, and performed it as 
 long as the place held out ; which encouraged others 
 \,oy\^\(5i'' (Carte), **The soldiers threw down their 
 arms upon a general offer of quarter " (Clarendon), 
 " Quarter was offered and accepted " (Lingard), The 
 promise was observed until the town was taken. 
 When the town was in his hands, Oliver Cromwell 
 gave orders to his army for an indiscriminate massacre 
 of the garrison, and of every man, woman, and child 
 of that large city. The people, when they saw the 
 soldiers slain around them, when they saw the men 
 killed on every side, when they saw the streets of 
 Drogheda flowing with blood for five days, fled, to 
 the number of a thousand of aged men, and women, 
 and children, and they took refuge in the great church 
 of St. Peter, in Drogheda. Oliver Cromwell drew his 
 army around that church, and out of that church 
 he never allowed one of these thousand innocent 
 people to escape alive. He then proceeded to Wex- 
 ford, and there a certain commander- of the garrison, 
 named Stafford, admitted him into the city, and he 
 massacred the people there again. Three hundred 
 of the women of Wexford, with their little children, 
 gathered around the great market cross, in the public 
 square of the city ; for they thought in their hearts, 
 all terrible as he was, that he would respect and save 
 those who were under the sign of man's redemption, 
 
Ireland under Cromwell. 127 
 
 that he would spare all those who were under the 
 image of the rood. Oh, how vain the thought! Three 
 hundred poor defenseless women screaming for mercy 
 under the cross of Jesus Christ, and Cromwell and 
 his barbarous demons around them. He destroyed 
 them, so as not to let one of those innocents escape 
 until his men were ankle deep in the blood of the 
 women of Wexford. He retired from Ireland after 
 having glutted himself with the blood of the peo- 
 ple. He retired from Ireland, but he wound up his 
 war by taking 80,000 and some say 100,000, and driv- 
 ing them down to the southern ports of Munster. He 
 shipped 80,000 at the least calculation to the sugar 
 plantations of Barbadoes, there to work as slaves, and 
 in six years* time such was the treatment they received 
 there, that out of the 80,000 there were not twenty 
 men left. He collected 6,000 Irish boys, fair, beauti- 
 ful, stripling youths, and he put them in ships and sent 
 them also off to Barbadoes, there to languish and to die 
 before they ever came to the fullness of their age, and of 
 their manhood. Oh, great God ! is this the man ? is 
 this\\i^ man who has an apologist in the learned, frank, 
 generous, and gentlemanly historian, who comes, in 
 oily words, to tell the American people that Cromwell 
 was one of the bravest men that ever lived, and one 
 of the best friends that Ireland ever had ? Now v/e 
 must pass on. Oliver died in 1658. Here I meet a 
 singular assertion of Mr. Froude's, who tells us that 
 much as he regrets all the blood that was shed 
 by a terrible vengeance, still it resulted in great 
 
128 Lecture III. 
 
 good for Ireland. And the good consisted in 
 this : the Parliament, after Cromweirs victories, found 
 themselves masters of Ireland, and the Irish people 
 lying in blood and ruin before them — what was their 
 next measure ? Their next measure was to pass a law 
 driving all the people of Ireland who owned any por- 
 tion of the land, all the Irish landowners and the Cath- 
 olics out of Ulster, Munster and Leinster. On the ist 
 of May, 1654, all Ireland was driven across the Shan- 
 non into Connaught. The phrase used by the Crom- 
 wellians on the occasion was ** That they were to go 
 to hell or Connaught.'* The solemnity of the historic 
 occasion which brings us together will not permit me 
 to make any remarks on such a phrase as this ; how- 
 ever, the Irish did not go to hell, but they were obliged 
 to go to Connaught. Lest, however, they might have 
 any relief come to them by sea, lest they might even 
 enjoy the sight of the fair provinces and the fair land 
 which was once their own, he made a law that no Irish- 
 man transplanted into Connaught was to come within 
 four miles of the river Shannon on the one side, or with- 
 in four miles of the sea on the other side. There w^as a 
 cordon of English soldiery and English forts drawn 
 about them, and there they were to live in the bogs, 
 in the fastnesses and in the wild wastes of the most 
 desolate region in Ireland ; there they were to pine and 
 expire by famine and by every form of suffering that 
 their Heavenly Father might permit to fall upon 
 them. 
 
 Then we read that numbers of Englishmen came 
 
Ireland under Cromwell, 1 29 
 
 over to Ireland, and I don't blame them ! The fair 
 plains of Munster were there desolate, waiting for 
 them ; the splendid valleys of Leinster, with their 
 green bosoms, were waiting for the hand to put in the 
 plough, or put the spade into the bountiful earth. 
 They were waiting for an owner; so the English came 
 over, and they were very glad to get this fair land of 
 Ireland for almost nothing. Cromwell settled down 
 his troops there. Those rough Puritan soldiers, who 
 came to Ireland with the Bible in one hand and the 
 sword in the other, took possession of the country, 
 and, according to Mr. Froude, here is the benefit that 
 resulted from Cromwell's plantation. In fifteen years 
 they changed Ireland into a garden ; all the bogs were 
 drained, all the fields were fenced, all the meadows 
 were mown, all the fallow fields were ploughed, and 
 the country was smiling ; never was there anything so 
 fine seen before in Ireland, as the state of things 
 brought about by Cromwell. The poor Irish peas- 
 antry that were harassed by the priests, bishops, and 
 chieftains now enjoyed comfort, peace, and quiet, as 
 the servants of the new English owners and possess- 
 ors of the soil. Well ! I wish for Ireland's sake that 
 this picture were true. 
 
 And this fifteen years of which Mr. Froude speaks 
 must have begun in 1653 ; because it was only in Sep- 
 tember of that year that the English Parliament de- 
 clared that the war was over in Ireland. Up to that 
 time there was war and bloodshed. Now there was 
 
 peace. Oh, my friends ! he made it a solitude ; he 
 
 6^ 
 
1 30 Lecture III, 
 
 made it a desert, and called it peace. But was it a 
 peaceful desert ? 
 
 Oliver Cromwell died in 1658, and now I want to 
 read for you the state of Ireland — Mr. Froude's ** Gar- 
 den " — at that time. Ireland, in the language of Scrip- 
 ture, now laid void as a wilderness ; five-sixths of her 
 people had perished — men, women and children were 
 found daily perishing in ditches, starved. The bodies 
 of many wandering orphans, whose fathers had em- 
 barked for Spain, and whose mothers had died of 
 famine, were fed upon by wolves. In the years 1652 
 and '53, the plague and famine had swept away the 
 inhabitants of whole counties, so that a man might 
 travel twenty or thirty miles and not see a living 
 creature — man, beast, or bird ; they were all dead, or 
 had quit these desolate places. The troopers would 
 tell stories of places where they saw smoke ; it was so 
 rare to see fire or smoke, either by day or night. In 
 two or three cabins where they went, they found none 
 but aged men, with women and children, and, in 
 the words of the prophet, " they became as a bottle in 
 the smoke ; " their skin was black, like an oven, be- 
 cause of the terrible famine ; they were seen to cat 
 filthy carrion out of the ditch, black and rotten, and 
 were said to have even taken corpses out of the graves 
 to eat. A party of horse, hunting for Tories on a 
 dark night, discovered a light and thought it was a 
 fire which the Tories used. They made fires in those 
 waste countries to cook their food and warm them- 
 selves. Drawing near, they saw it was a ruined cabin, 
 
Ireland under Cromwell, 1 3 1 
 
 and posting themselves around they peeped in at the 
 windows, and there they saw a great fire of wood, and 
 sitting around it was a company of miserable women 
 and children, and between them and the fire a dead 
 corpse lay broiling, which, as the fire roasted, they cut 
 and ate. 
 
 A year before Oliver died, in 1657, we find a member 
 of the Irish Parliament, Major Morgan, declaring that 
 the whole land of Ireland was in ruin, for beside the 
 cost of rebuilding the churches and court-houses and 
 market-houses, which were very heavy, they were under 
 a very heavy charge for public rewards paid for the 
 destruction of three burdensome beasts. What do 
 you think the three beasts were ? The wolf, the priest, 
 and the tory. Now let me explain the state of the 
 '^ garden " to you. During these years of which Mr. 
 Froude speaks so flatteringly, there was actually a 
 grant of land issued within nine miles of the City of 
 Dublin, on the north side, that is to say, on the most 
 cultivated side of the city, under conditions of keep- 
 ing a pack of wolf-hounds to hunt and destroy the 
 wolves. The wolves increased in Ireland from the deso- 
 late state of the country ; they fed on the dead carcasses 
 of men and beasts ; they increased in Ireland so that 
 they actually came famished to the very gates of Dub- 
 lin, and had to be driven away. Does this look like a 
 garden ? Is this the kingdom of peace and plenty, and 
 comfort, and happiness into which the Irish peasant 
 had come at last — where everything was peace and 
 security, where the bogs were all drained and the fields 
 
132 Lecture III. 
 
 beautifully fenced by the dear Cromwellians who got 
 possession of the land ? When the relics of the army 
 were embarking for Spain, some of the soldiers had 
 magnificent Irish wolf-dogs, and wished to take their 
 dogs with them. They were stopped at the port, and *» 
 the dogs taken from them for the purpose of hunting 
 the wolves that infested the country. 
 
 This is my first answer to Mr. Froude*s assertion 
 that Ireland was a garden. The second beast men- 
 tioned by Major Morgan in the Irish House of 
 Commons was — the priest. And he was to be hunted 
 down like the wolf. There were five pounds set upon 
 the head of a dog-wolf, and there were five pounds set 
 on the head of a priest, and ten pounds on the head 
 of a bishop or a Jesuit. Mr. Froude says that these 
 severe laws were not put into execution. He tells us 
 that whilst parliament passed these laws they privately 
 instructed the magistrates not to execute them. So 
 merciful, so tolerant, is the genius of Mr. Froude's 
 Protestantism ! We have however the terrible fact be- 
 fore us that the English Parliament made laws com- 
 manding the magistrates, under heavy fine and penal- 
 ties, to execute these laws. We find the country filled 
 with informers, we find priest-hunting actually re- 
 duced to a profession in Ireland, and we find strange 
 enough, the Portuguese Jews coming all the way from 
 Portugal in order to hunt priests in Ireland, so valua- 
 ble was the privilege regarded. In 1698, under Wil- 
 liam III., there were in Ireland four hundred and 
 ninety-five religious and eight hundred and sevent\'- 
 
i i 
 
 Ireland under Cromwell, 133 
 
 two secular priests, and in that very year, out of four 
 hundred and ninety-five friars, four hundred and twen- 
 ty-four were shipped off from Ireland into banishment 
 and into slavery ; and of the eight hundred and odd 
 secular priests that remained in the land, not one of 
 them would be allowed to say Mass in public or pri- 
 vate, nor indeed remain in the country until he first 
 took the oath to renounce the supremacy of the Pope 
 — of Papal abjuration — in other words, until he be- 
 came a Protestant. It is all very well for my learned 
 friend to tell us that the laws were not put into execu- 
 tion ; but what is the meaning of such entries as 
 these? — ^* Five pounds on the certificate of Major 
 Thomas Stanley " — *^ to Thomas Gregson, Evan Pow- 
 ell and Samuel Ally, being three soldiers in Colonel 
 Abbott's dragoons, for arresting a popish priest named 
 Donogh Haggerty, taken and now secured in the 
 county jail of Clonmel, and the money," it says, '' to 
 be equally divided between them." '' To Arthur 
 Spunner, Robert Pearce and John Bruen, five pounds, 
 to be divided equally between them, for their good 
 service performed in apprehending and bringing be- 
 fore the Right Honorable Lord Chief Justice Pepys, 
 on the 2 1st of January, one popish priest named Ed- 
 win Dinn." ^^ To Lieutenant Edward Wood, on the 
 certificate of Wm. St. George, Esq., justice of the 
 peace, county Cavan, twenty-five pounds, for five 
 priests and friars apprehended by him, namely, Thomas 
 McKernan, Turlough O'Gowan, Hugh McGowan, 
 Torlogh Fitzsimmons, who on examination confessed 
 
134 Lecture II L 
 
 themselves to be priests and friars/' " To Sergeant 
 Humphrey Gibbs " — a nice name — ^' and to Corporal 
 Thomas Hill, of Colonel Lee's company, ten pounds, 
 for apprehending two popish priests, namely, Maurice 
 Prendergast and Edward Fahy, who were secured in the 
 jail of Waterford and afterwards were transported to 
 foreign parts." 
 
 In 1655 a general arrest of priests by the justices of 
 the peace was ordered, under which, in April, 1656, the 
 prisons in every part of Ireland seem to have been 
 filled to overflowing. On the 3d of May, the govern- 
 ors of the respective precincts were ordered to send 
 them with sufficient guards from garrison to garrison 
 to Carrickfergus, to be there put on board such ship as 
 should sail with the first opportunity for Barbadoes. 
 
 The third burdensome beast was *^ the tory." The 
 great aim of the English government was to give se- 
 curity to the English and Scotch planters. For this 
 end, 40,000 of the fighting men of Ireland were forced 
 to abandon wives and children, and embark for Spain. 
 The deserted families, the few remaining landed pro- 
 prietors with their tenants and their wives, sons and 
 daughters, were forced into Connaught. The aboriginal 
 Irish and the old English were involved in a common 
 ruin, and we read how Lord Roche of Fermoy, reduced 
 in his old age to beggary, was forced with his daugh- 
 ters to go on foot into Connaught, there to end his 
 days in misery in some wretched cabin, whilst his an- 
 cient inheritance was divided between a troop of hun- 
 gry, canting hypocrites of Cromwell's army. The land 
 
Ireland under Cromwell, 135 
 
 was filled with such unfortunates. Inspired by such 
 sights, bands of desperate men formed themselves into 
 bodies, under the leadership of some dispossessed gen- 
 tleman, who had retired into the wilds on the surrender 
 of the army to which he belonged, or who had " run 
 out *' again after submitting, and resumed arms rather 
 than transplant into Connaught. He soon found as- 
 sociates and followers, who, being beggared, were des- 
 perate as himself. These were the Tories, and the 
 countn/ was soon infested with them. The great re- 
 gions left waste by war and transplantations gave 
 them scopes for harboring in, and the inadequate num- 
 bers of the forces of the Commonwealth to fully con- 
 trol so extensive a country as Ireland, left them at 
 liberty to plan their surprises. If Ireland was the gar- 
 den that Mr. Froude describes it to be, how comes it 
 to pass, that no Cromwellian settler throughout the 
 •length and breadth of the land dared to take a piece 
 of land unless there was a garrison of soldiers within 
 his immediate neighborhood ? Nay, even under the 
 very eyes of this garrison of Timolin, in Meath, the 
 Tories came down, robbed, plundered, set fire and de- 
 stroyed the homesteads of certain English Cromwel- 
 lian settlers, for which all the people of the neighbor- 
 hood, of Irish names and of Irish parentage, were at 
 once taken and banished out of the country. In a 
 word, the outlaws, who thirty years afterwards ap- 
 peared as Rapparees, who are described to us in such 
 fearful terms by the English historian, continued to 
 infest and desolate the country, and we find accounts 
 
136 Lecture II L 
 
 of them in the State Papers down to the latter year of 
 the reign of George iV. And this was the garden ! 
 This was the land of peace, of comfort, and of plenty ! 
 Now, my friends, came the restoration in 1659. 
 Charles II. was restored to the throne of England.* 
 Well, the Irish had been fighting for his father ; the 
 Irish had bled and suffered fighting his enemies, and 
 they were now banished into Connaught ; they naturally 
 expected that when the rightful heir to the throne 
 would come into his inheritance they would be recalled 
 and put into their estates. They might have expected 
 more. They might have expected to be rewarded by 
 honors, titles and wealth. But what is the fact ? The 
 fact is, that Charles II., at the restoration, left nearly 
 the whole of Ireland in the hands of the Cromwellian 
 settlers, and by an act of settlement secured them in 
 their estates, leaving the property and the wealth of the 
 country to the men who had brought his father to the 
 scaffold, and leaving in beggary, destitution and in ruin, 
 the brave and loyal men who had fought for him and 
 his house. At first, indeed, there was a Court of 
 Claims opened ; for, remember, in England, no sooner 
 had Charles come to the throne than all the Cromwel- 
 lian settlers who had taken the property of the English 
 royalists were at once put out, and the English lords 
 and gentlemen got back their property and estates. 
 Not so in Ireland. The Court of Claims was opened 
 in the first year of the reign of Charles. As soon as 
 it was perceived that the Irish Catholic gentlemen be- 
 gan to claim their property they shut up the court at 
 
Ireland imder Cromwell. 137 
 
 once. Three thousand of these claims remained unheard. 
 As Leland says, "' The people of Ireland were denied the 
 justice which is given to the commonest criminal — the 
 justice of having a fair and impartial hearing." Nu- 
 gent, afterwards Lord Riverstone, writes at this time, 
 "There are in Ireland to-day 5,000 men who never 
 were outlawed, and yet who have been put out of their 
 estates, and now by law can never recover their es- 
 tates again.'* More than this ; no sooner is Charles 
 seated on the throne of England than the Irish Par- 
 liament began to afflict the already down-trodden 
 people of Ireland by a legislation the most infamous 
 that can be imagined. In 1673 the English Parlia- 
 ment furiously demanded of the king to expel all the 
 Catholic bishops and priests from Ireland, and to 
 prohibit the Papists from living there without a 
 license. In order to appease the Protestant plun- 
 derers, Charles, against his conscience and against his 
 royal gratitude, obeyed them. Law after law was 
 passed in that year and the succeeding years abolish- 
 ing and destroying, as far as they could, every vestige 
 of the Catholic religion in Ireland. Mr. Froude here 
 again makes the astounding assertion that when the 
 restoration came, the Catholic religion and the Catholic 
 people came back with it. He tells us that the Cath- 
 olic Archbishop of Dublin was received in state at 
 Dublin Castle. What are the facts? The Primate, 
 Edmund O'Riley, was banished. Peter Talbot, the 
 Archbishop of Dublin, although he was in a dying 
 state, got leave but a short time before to return to 
 
138 Lecture III. 
 
 Ireland that he might die in the land of his birth. He 
 was arrested in Maynooth, near Dublin, and shut up 
 in a dungeon, and there he died a miserable death 
 of martyrdom. 
 
 We find at this very time a reward offered of ten ' 
 pounds for any one who would discover an officer of the 
 army attending at '' Mass" — five pounds for a trooper, 
 and four shillings for a private soldier, who was dis- 
 covered to have heard ^' Mass." Oliver Plunket, the 
 holy primate of Armagh, was seized by Lord Ormond, 
 in 1679. They knew that they could not condemn him 
 of any lawlessness or treason in Ireland, and they 
 brought him over to London, packed an English jury 
 to try him, and they murdered him at Tyburn, on the 
 1st of July, 1681. 
 
 It is true these penal laws were somewhat relaxed 
 for some years before Charles the Second's death. 
 That event took place in 1685, and James II. came 
 to the throne. Three years afterwards William of 
 Orange landed to dispute with him the title to the 
 crown of England. Now, although James II. was 
 a Catholic he was the lawful King of England, and 
 that no man will deny. William was married to 
 James's daughter Mary, and William came to Eng- 
 land with an army of 15,000 men at his back; he 
 came to inquire who was the lawful heir to the crown. 
 Well ! James fled to France as soon as William landed 
 with his army. Mr. Froude says *^ that he abdicated 
 when he fled to France." I deny that James ab- 
 dicated. When he retired for a time from the face 
 
Ireland under CromzvelL 1 39 
 
 of his enemy, he called upon his subjects both in Eng- 
 land and Ireland to stand to their king like loyal men. 
 The English betrayed him ; the Irish rose up again for 
 the Stuart king, and declared they were loyal men, 
 and they would stand by their monarch. James came 
 to Ireland in 1689, and summoned a parliament, the 
 same parliament which Mr. Froude speaks of in his 
 lecture as a persecuting parliament ; he says that '* they 
 attainted almost every single Protestant proprietor in 
 Ireland by name ; that they did this lest any one 
 should escape out of their net." Now, what are the 
 facts of that parliament of 1689? The very first thing 
 that they declared, although they had suffered more 
 than any other people of religious persecution, the 
 very first law they made was, " that there should be 
 no more religious persecution in Ireland, and that no 
 man from that day forward should suffer for his con- 
 science or his faith." It is perfectly true, that they 
 passed a bill of attainder, but they passed that bill not 
 against Protestants, but against every man of the land 
 that was in arms against King James — whom they 
 recognized as their king — every man who refused to 
 obey him and his government. I ask you, in doing 
 that, did they not do their duty? Did they not do 
 precisely what is always done in time of rebellion? 
 England was in rebellion against James, its lawful 
 king. James was in Ireland and there was an Irish 
 Parliament with James at its head, declaring every 
 man was an outlaw who was in arms against him. 
 Against these outlaws the Bill of Attainder was 
 
140 Lecture III, 
 
 passed — this persecuting measure of which Mr. Froude 
 speaks when he mentions this parliament. 
 
 William came to Ireland and opened the campaign 
 in 1690. Mr. Froude says in his description of this 
 " that William brought with him a motley army, ill-» 
 disciplined and dissolute, but that the Irish were never 
 so strong, never were so well drilled, or so perfectly 
 equipped as they were at the time.'* Now, here are 
 the proofs as given by history : ** William's army con- 
 sisted at first of 45,000 veteran soldiers, a motley 
 assemblage, it is true, of various nationalities, but well 
 trained and most of them veteran troops ; all were 
 well armed and equipped in the best possible manner. 
 They were supplied with everything requisite for war 
 and more especially with a numerous train of artillery. 
 The Irish army of James numbered 23,000 imperfectly 
 disciplined troops, wanting in nearly everything neces- 
 sary for a campaign." This we have on the evidence 
 of the Duke of Berwick ; he was serving in the army 
 at the time. At the Battle of the Boyne, Mr. Froude 
 says ^' that the Irish did not make even a creditable 
 stand," and I regret, bitterly regret, that the learned 
 gentleman should have forgotten himself so far as to 
 have ventured in the faintest whisper to impute a 
 want of courage to the soldiers of the Irish race. At 
 the Battle of the Boyne, James and his army were on 
 the south bank of the river. William with his army 
 advanced down from the north. William's muster-roll 
 of the army on that morning shows the figures of 
 51,000 men. James's army had not increased from 
 
Ireland under CrofnwelL 141 
 
 the original 23,000. William was a lion-hearted and 
 brave soldier. James, I regret to say, had forgotten 
 the tradition of that ancient courage and gallantry 
 which distinguished him as Duke of York — when he 
 was Lord High Admiral of England. The one had 
 the heart of a lion, the other that of a stag. The Irish 
 fixed upon James an opprobrious name in the Irish 
 language, which on an occasion like this I will not 
 permit myself to repeat. On the morning of the 
 Battle of the Boyne, William detached 10,000 men, 
 who went up the stream some miles to ford it near 
 the hill of Slane. James could scarcely be prevailed 
 upon to send one or two regiments to oppose the 
 10,000 men with their artillery headed by Count 
 Schombers. The evening before the battle James 
 sent away six guns towards Dublin. How many do 
 you think remained ? Only six pieces of artillery 
 remained with the Irish army on that day. How 
 many were opposed to them? We have it on 
 historic record that William brought into the field 
 on the day of the Battle of the Boyne, fifty heavy 
 pieces of artillery, and four mortars. Then he 
 advanced and crossed the river. These Irish troops, 
 of which Mr. Froude says that they did not make 
 even a respectable stand, were out-generaled that 
 day ; they had at their head a timorous king who had 
 already sent away his artillery and his baggage ; who 
 had already drawn around his person, two miles away, 
 all the best disciplined of the French soldiers, and only 
 the raw levies — all the young Irishmen — were opposed 
 
142 Lecture III, 
 
 to the fifty-one thousand of the bravest men of Europe. 
 Well ! they crossed the Boyne, and the Duke of Ber- 
 wick is my authority for stating this. He says, " With 
 admirable courage and gallantry the Irish troops 
 charged the English ten times after they had crossed* 
 the river." Ten times ! these poor young fellows, 
 with no generals, charged upon the English with a 
 dash as brave as that with which O'Brien, Lord Clare, 
 swept down upon them at Fontenoy. Ten distinct 
 times did they dash against the terrible lines of 
 William's veterans, and then they retreated like an army 
 in perfect order at the command of their superior offi- 
 cers. The Irish, according to the Duke of Berwick, lost 
 one thousand men in killed and wounded. The Eng- 
 lish, according to Story, who was present, lost four hun- 
 dred men killed, which would make, according to the 
 usual proportion, a total loss of twelve per cent, killed 
 and wounded. Thus it appears that the Irish gave 
 more than they got. Now came the first siege of 
 Athlone. That same year, 1690, the English army ad- 
 vanced on the line of the Shannon. ^^ At Athlone," 
 Mr. Froude says, '' the Irish deserted posts which they 
 easily might have made impregnable." Now, what 
 are the facts ? At the first siege Col. Richard Grace 
 beat back the English under Douglas, although the 
 latter had an army of twelve thousand men, twelve 
 cannon and two mortars. 
 
 Then William advanced upon Limerick ; he brought 
 with him the whole strength of his army. He had, when 
 he went to Limerick, thirty-eight thousand effective men 
 
Ireland under Cromwell, 143 
 
 in regular line of battle. In the town of Limerick 
 there was the army of James, made up partly of Irish 
 under the immortal Sarsfield, and partly of French 
 under a general named Lauzun. The whole force 
 amounted to about twenty thousand infantry only, one- 
 half of which was armed, and three thousand five 
 hundred cavalry encamped five miles outside the city. 
 When the great English army with its king was ap- 
 proaching the city the French general, seeing it so de- 
 fenseless, actually left the town with the troops, swear- 
 ing that ^^ the town could be taken with roasted ap- 
 ples." Sarsfield with the Irish remained. William 
 advanced before the town and battered it with his 
 cannons until he made a breach thirty-six feet wide, 
 and then assaulted it with twelve thousand of his picked 
 men. They actually entered the town, and were 
 beaten out of the walls of Limerick ; beaten back 
 over the broken ruins. The very women of Limerick 
 entered into the contest, fighting side by side with 
 their brothers, husbands and fathers. After four hours, 
 however, of fighting, William Prince of Orange with- 
 drew from the assault and left two thousand men in the 
 breaches of Limerick ; two thousand men and one 
 hundred and fifty-eight officers were destroyed in that 
 assault. The next day King William sent a message to 
 the city asking them for leave to bury his dead. And 
 the answer he got was — *^ Begone ! We will give you 
 no leave. Take yourself away, and we will bury your 
 dead." In the second siege of Athlone of the follow- 
 ing year the English town was occupied by Colonel 
 
144 Lecture III, 
 
 Fitzgerald. St. Ruth, with the Irish army, lay two 
 miles away on the other side of the Shannon. The 
 English town was assailed by eight thousand men 
 against the four hundred commanded by Fitzgerald. 
 The Irish troops who remained under Fitzgerald^ 
 stopped the whole English army, and fought until out 
 of the four hundred men not two hundred were left 
 before they crossed the bridge that goes to the other 
 portion of the town. Before they crossed the bridge 
 they broke one of the arches. The English army with 
 all their artillery battered that Irish town until they 
 did not leave a house or stone upon stone in it. 
 After the Irish troops retired, the English attempted 
 to plank over the broken arch of the bridge. They 
 had their guns fixed to sweep the bridge. Eleven 
 Irish soldiers came out to take the planks off; and out 
 of the eleven, such was the fierce, sweeping fire of 
 the English artillery, only two escaped. Again the 
 English advanced to the attack, and again eleven 
 other Irish sergeants of the various regiments came 
 out, in the face of the whole English army, and of 
 their artillery, and deliberately, under their very eyes, 
 destroyed the wooden bridge they were making over 
 the Shannon. And when the town was taken at last, 
 it was a mere heap of ruins. It was taken not from 
 any want of bravery on the part of the Irish soldiers, 
 but through the folly and misguided conduct of the 
 PVench general, St. Ruth, who refused to succor them. 
 Of Aughrim I will not speak ; because, my friends, 
 Mr. Froude himself acknowledges that at Aughrim the 
 
Ireland under CromwelL 145 
 
 Irish soldiers fought bravely. And because I have for 
 this English gentleman, really and truly, a sincere re- 
 gard and esteem, I would ask him to do what I myself 
 would do if I was in his position ; I would ask him to 
 reconsider the word in which he seems to imply a 
 taint of cowardice on Irishmen at home and abroad, 
 and in the name of God to take that word back ; be- 
 cause that word will remain and breed bad blood for 
 many a day. In 1691, the second siege of Limerick 
 began, and so gallant was the resistance, so brave the 
 defense, that William of Orange, who was a brave 
 man — and if left to himself, would have been a toler- 
 ant and mild man — who bore no ill-will to the Irish, 
 being a stranger to them, and only in Ireland simply 
 to further the service of war — who saw in the Irish a 
 high-spirited and brave people, was obliged to come 
 to terms, and the city capitulated. In the capitula- 
 tion, Sarsfield signed for the Irish ; they received hon- 
 orable terms from the royalty of England. By those 
 very articles, as citizens and as Catholics, their rights 
 were recognized to every liberty of conscience and of 
 religion. Scarcely was the treaty of Limerick signed 
 by the Lords Justices, than a French fleet entered the 
 Shannon. A French fleet of eighteen ships of the 
 line, with twenty transports, three thousand men, 
 two hundred officers, and, above all, ten thousand 
 stand of arms, with clothing and provisions. They 
 came! but they came too late for Sarsfield and 
 for Ireland, Sarsfield had surrendered. He might 
 have taken back that word ; he might have bro- 
 
 7 
 
146 Lecture III, 
 
 ken these articles, with the French forces and fleet 
 at his back. But Sarsfield, to his honor, was an 
 Irishman — and he was far too honorable a man to vio- 
 late the treaty of Limerick which he had signed with 
 his gallant hand. Would to God that the honor of 
 Sarsfield had also been in the hearts of the other men 
 who, on the part of England, signed that treaty ! 
 No ! the Lords Justices went back to Dublin with 
 the treaty signed, with the honor of the royalty of 
 England committed to it, and the next Sunday after 
 they arrived in Dublin they went to Christ Church 
 Cathedral to perform their devotions, and the sermon 
 was preached by Dopping, the Lord Bishop of Meath. 
 Now, I am more or less a professional preacher, and I 
 have a certain esprit de corps, I have the feeling for 
 preachers that every man has for his own profession. I 
 like to see them uphold the honor of their profession. 
 What do you think was the sermon that Dopping 
 preached ? He preached — and I am ashamed to say it, 
 although it is true he was a Protestant Bishop — "' on 
 the sin of and the sinfulness of keeping your oath or 
 faith with a Papist." Immediately after the articles of 
 Limerick were signed, we have the testimony of Har- 
 ris, the historian of William III., who says: ''The 
 justices of the peace and sheriffs and other magistrates, 
 presuming on their power in the country, did in an 
 illegal manner dispossess several of their majesty's sub- 
 jects, not only of their goods and chattels, but of their 
 lands and tenements, to the great disturbance of the 
 peace of the kingdom, and to the reproach of the law 
 
Ireland under Cromwell, 147 
 
 and their majesty's government." We find those 
 Lords Justices themselves complaining, in a letter of 
 the 19th November, six weeks after the treaty was 
 signed, that their lordships had received complaints 
 from all parts of the land of the ill-treatment of the 
 people who had submitted to their majesty's protec- 
 tion and were included in the articles of that treaty. 
 And the consequence was, that actually the men who 
 had previously refused to embark with Sarsfield to go 
 to Spain and France with him, came back in thousands, 
 back to the English Government to obtain leave to join 
 Sarsfield in exile ; to let them go to fight the battles 
 of France, Spain, and Austria, because there was no 
 room in Ireland for a Catholic Irishman nor even for an 
 honest man. 
 
 Now began a time the most lamentable for Ireland. 
 William himself was anxious to keep his royal word, 
 and would have kept it if they had allowed him. But 
 the same pressure was put upon him as was brought to 
 bear on Charles I. The Irish Protestant faction would 
 not allow the Catholics to live m the land. The Eng- 
 lish Parliament would not allow a Catholic to breathe 
 in the land ; and William was coerced to comply with 
 their request, and a series of the most terrible laws 
 that can be imagined were passed in the very teeth of 
 the articles signed in Limerick. Three years after the 
 siege of Limerick, the parliament were urged by the 
 grievances of the Protestants of Ireland — the poor fel- 
 lows complained *' that the Catholics would not g\N^ 
 them leave to live ! " They poured in their petitions 
 
148 Lecture III, 
 
 to the House of Commons. We find a petition from 
 the Protestant mayor and aldermen of the city of Lim- 
 erick, complaining, in their own words, " that they 
 were greatly damaged in their trade by the great num- 
 ber of Papists residing there ;" also praying to be re-*' 
 lieved of them. We find the coal-porters of Dublin 
 sending in a petition to parliament, and it was as fol- 
 lows : A petition of one Edward Sprag — another nice 
 name ! — and others, in behalf of themselves and other 
 Protestant porters in and about the city of Dublin, 
 complaining that one Darby Ryan, a Papist, actually 
 employed porters of his own religion, and the petition 
 was entertained by the Irish House of Commons and 
 sent to the ^^ Committee on Grievances." The parlia- 
 ment passed an act for the better securing of the gov- 
 ernment against the Papists ; and the first act of that 
 parliament was that no Catholic in Ireland was to be 
 allowed to have a gun, pistol, or sword of any kind, or 
 weapon of offense or defense. The consequence of 
 disobeying this law was banishment or fine and impris- 
 onment, at the discretion of the court, or else the pil- 
 lory, or whipping. Now, here are the reflections of 
 Mr. Mitchel : " It is impossible to describe the minute 
 and curious tyranny to which this statute gave rise in 
 every parish of the island ; especially in districts where 
 there was an armed yeomanry, exclusively Protestant, 
 it fared ill with any Catholic who fell for any reason 
 under the displeasure of his formidable neighbors. Any 
 pretext was sufficient for pointing him out to suspicion. 
 Any neighboring magistrate might visit him at any 
 
Ireland under Cromwell, 149 
 
 hour of the night, and search his bed for arms. No 
 Papist was safe from suspicion who had any money to 
 pay in fines, and woe to the Papist who had a hand- 
 some daughter.'* 
 
 The second act that they passed was for the purpose 
 of brutalizing the Irish CathoHc people by ignorance. 
 They made a law that no Catholic was to send his son 
 to a Catholic school or to a Catholic teacher. No 
 Catholic child was to be sent out of Ireland to receive 
 a Catholic education elsewhere ; or if any parent 01 
 guardian was found sending money, clothing or any 
 thing else to a Catholic child in a Catholic school, there 
 was forfeiture, imprisonment, and fine ; disabilities of 
 various kinds, but above all the old and favorite punish- 
 ment, forfeiture of estate. 
 
 The third act passed was : " That all Popish arch- 
 bishops, bishops, vicars-general, Jesuits, monks, friars, 
 or other regular Popish clergy or Papists, exercising 
 any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, were ordered to depart 
 out of the kingdom before the ist of May, 1698. If 
 any remained after that day, or if any returned, the de- 
 linquents were to be transported ; if they returned again, 
 they were guilty of high treason, to suffer accordingly " 
 — that is to say : to be hanged, drawn and quartered. 
 
 You would imagine now, at least, that the Papists 
 were down as far as they could be put down. You 
 would imagine now, at least, that the Protestant reli- 
 gion was safe in Ireland. Ah ! my friends, William 
 was succeeded by his sister-in-law. Queen Anne. She 
 was a Stuart — the daughter of James II., for whom 
 
I so Lecture III. 
 
 Ireland shed its blood ; the granddaughter of Charles 
 L, for whom Ireland had shed its blood ; and one 
 would think she would have some heart — some feel- 
 ing for that people. Here is the way she showed it : 
 
 A parliament under this good queen passed a law •• 
 to further prevent the growth of Popery. What a 
 strange plant this Popery must be! They had been 
 chopping it up, and cutting it down, tramping it under 
 foot, blowing it up with gunpowder, digging out the 
 roots, as if they thought that would extirpate it. Yet, 
 year after year, a parliament comes in and says : " We 
 must stop the growth of Popery ; *' and passed laws to 
 stop the growth of Popery. By the first Act of this 
 parliament of good Queen Anne, it was enacted, that 
 if a son of a Papist should ever become Protestant, his 
 father might not sell, or mortgage his estate, or dis- 
 pose of it, or any portion of it, by sale. The Protest- 
 ant son became master of his father's estate ; or if 
 any child, no matter how young, conformed to the 
 Protestant religion, it reduced his father at once to be 
 a tenant for life, and the child was to be taken from 
 the father, and placed under the guardianship of some 
 Protestant relative. They made a Papist incapable 
 of purchasing any landed estates, or rents, or profits 
 arising out of land, or hold any lease of lives, or any 
 other lease exceeding thirty-one years. 
 
 Finally, they capped the climax, by passing a law, 
 that no Papist or Catholic was to have a horse worth 
 more than five pounds. If he had one worth five thou- 
 sand pounds, and a Protestant came up to offer him 
 
Ireland under Cromwell, 151 
 
 five pounds for the horse, whether he took the offered 
 money or not, the Protestant was at Hberty to seize 
 the CathoHc's property. In a word, every enactment 
 that could degrade, viHfy, or annihilate the people, was 
 the order of the day, and the business of parliament, 
 from the days of Elizabeth, down to the days when 
 America burst her chains, and before her terrible pres- 
 ence England grew afraid of her life, and began to re- 
 lax her penal laws. I feel, my friends, that I have de- 
 tained you too long, upon a subject, which, indeed, was 
 dreary and desolate ground to travel over. I for my 
 part never would have invited the citizens of America, 
 or my fellow-countrymen, to enter upon such a desolate 
 waste ; to renew in my heart and yours so deep and ter- 
 rible a sore, if Mr. Froude had not compelled me to lift 
 the veil, and to show you the treatment our fathers re- 
 ceived at the hands of England. I do it, not at all to 
 excite national animosity — not at all to stir up bad 
 blood. I am one of those most willing to say, "' Let 
 bygones be bygones; let the dead bury their dead.'* 
 But if any man — I care not who he be — how great his 
 reputation — how grand his name, in any walk or line 
 of science or history ; if any man dare to come — as 
 long as I live — to say that England's treatment of 
 Ireland was just, and was necessary — was such as can 
 receive the verdict of an honest man, or of a nation or 
 a people — if any man dare say that, either at home or 
 abroad, Irishmen have ever shown the white feather in 
 the hour of danger — if I was on my death-bed, I would 
 rise to contradict him. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 GRATTAN AND THE VOLUN- 
 TEERS. 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: — I have perceived in 
 the public papers that Mr. Froude seems to be some- 
 what irritated by remarks that have been made as to 
 his accuracy as a historian. Lest any word of mine 
 might hurt in the least degree the just susceptibilities 
 of an honorable man, I beg beforehand to say that 
 nothing was further from my thoughts than the slight- 
 est word, either of personality or disrespect for one 
 who has won for himself so high a name as an Eng- 
 lish historian. And therefore I sincerely hope, that it 
 is not any word which may have fallen from me, even 
 in the heat of our amicable controversy, that can have 
 given the least offense to that gentleman. Just as I 
 would expect to receive from him, or from any other 
 learned and educated man, the treatment which one 
 gentleman is supposed to show to another, so do I also 
 wish to give to him that treatment. 
 
Graft an and the Volunteers, • 153 
 
 And now, my friends, we come to the matter in hand. 
 Last evening I had to traverse a great portion of my 
 country's history in reviewing the statements of the Eng- 
 lish historian, and I was obliged to leave almost un- 
 touched one portion of the sad story — namely, the period 
 which covers the reign of Queen Anne. This estima- 
 ble lady, of whom history records the unwomanly vice 
 of an overfondness for eating, came to the English 
 throne on the demise of William of Orange in 1702, 
 and on that throne she sat until 17 14. As I before re- 
 marked, it was perhaps natural that the Irish people 
 — the Catholics of Ireland, trodden into the very dust 
 — that they would have expected some quarter from 
 the daughter of the man for whom they had shed 
 their blood, and from the granddaughter of the other 
 Stuart king for whom they had fought with so much 
 bravery in 1649. The return that the Irish people got 
 from this good lady was quite of another kind from 
 what they might have expected. Not content with 
 the atrocious laws that had been already enacted 
 against the Catholics of Ireland ; not content with 
 the flagrant breach of the articles of Limerick, of 
 which her royal brother-in-law William was guilty, no 
 sooner does Anne come to the throne and send 
 the Duke of Ormond as Lord Lieutenant to Ireland, 
 than the English ascendency, that is to say the 
 parliament faction in Ireland, got upon their knees 
 to the new Lord Lieutenant to beg of him, for 
 the sake of the Lord, to save them from these des- 
 perate Roman Catholics. Great God! A people 
 
154 Lecture IV. 
 
 robbed, persecuted, and slain, until only a miserable 
 remnant of them weie left, without a voice in the 
 nation's councils, without a vote even at the hum- 
 blest board that sat to transact the meanest paro- 
 chial business — these were the men against whom 
 the strong Protestant ascendency of Ireland made 
 their complaint in 1703. And so well were these com- 
 plaints heard, my friends, that we find edict after edict 
 going out, declaring that no Papist shall be allowed 
 to inherit or possess land, or to buy land, or to have it 
 even under a lease ; declaring that if a Catholic child 
 wished to become Protestant, that instantly that child 
 became the owner and the master of his father's es- 
 tate, and his father remained only his pensioner or ten- 
 ant for life upon the bounty of his own apostate son ; 
 declaring that if a child, no matter how young, even 
 an infant, conformed and became Protestant, that mo- 
 ment that child was to be removed from the guardian- 
 ship and custody of the father and was to be handed 
 over to some Protestant relation. Every enactment 
 that the misguided ingenuity of the tyrannical mind 
 of man could suggest was adopted and put in force. 
 *' One might indeed suppose," says Mr. Mitchell, " that 
 Popery had been already sufficiently discouraged, see- 
 ing that the bishops and regular clergy had been ban- 
 ished, that Catholics were excluded by law from all 
 honorable or lucrative employments, carefully disarmed, 
 and plundered of almost every acre of their ancient in- 
 heritance. But enough had not yet been done to make 
 the Protestant interest feel secure," consequently 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers, 155 
 
 other laws were made, and clauses were added by 
 this good Queen Anne declaring that '* no papist or 
 Catholic could live in a walled town/* especially in the 
 towns of Limerick or Galway ; that no Catholic could 
 even enter the suburbs of the town. They were obliged 
 to remain outside of the town as if they were lepers, 
 whose presence would contaminate and degrade their 
 sleek and pampered Protestant fellow-citizens in the 
 land. The persecution went on. In 171 1 we find them 
 enacting new laws, and later on, to the very last day 
 of Queen Anne's reign, we find them enacting their 
 laws, hounding on the magistrates and the police of 
 the country and the informers, offering them bribes 
 and premiums to execute these atrocious laws, and to 
 hunt the Catholic people and the Catholic priests of 
 Ireland as if they were fierce, untamable wolves. And, 
 my friends, Mr. Froude justifies all this on two 
 grounds. Not a single word has he of compassion for 
 the people who were thus treated ; not a single word 
 has he of manly protest against the shedding of that 
 people's blood by unjust persecution — as well as their 
 robbery by legal enactments. But he says there were 
 two reasons which, in his mind, seemed to justify the 
 atrocious action of the English government. The 
 first of these was that, after all, these laws were only 
 retaliation upon the Catholics of Ireland for the dread- 
 ful persecutions that were suffered by the Huguenots, 
 or Protestants, of France ; and he says that the Prot- 
 estants of Ireland were only following the example of 
 King Louis XIV., who revoked the Edict of Nantes. 
 
156 Lecture IV, 
 
 I could not explain this matter better than by quoting 
 the words of the illustrious Irishman who is in the 
 midst of us, John Mitchel. 
 
 ^* The recall of the Edict of Nantes, which edict had 
 secured toleration for Protestantism in France, is 
 bitterly dwelt upon by English writers as the heaviest 
 reproach which weighs on the memory of King Louis 
 XIV. The recall of the edict had taken place in 
 1685, only a few years before the passage of this Irish 
 *Act to prevent the further growth of Popery/ 
 The differences between the two transactions are 
 mainly these two : firsts that the French Protestants 
 had not been guaranteed their civil and religious 
 rights by any treaty, as the Irish Catholics thought 
 they held theirs, by the Treaty of Limerick ; second^ 
 that the penalties denounced against French Protest- 
 ants by the recalling edict bore entirely upon their 
 religious service itself, and were truly intended to 
 induce and force the Huguenots to become Catholics ; 
 there being no confiscations except in cases of relapse, 
 and in cases of quitting the kingdom ; but there was 
 nothing of all the complicated machinery above de- 
 scribed, for beggaring one portion of the population, 
 and giving its spoils to the other part. We may add, 
 that the penalties and disabilities in France lasted a 
 much shorter time than in Ireland ; and that French 
 Protestants were restored to perfect civil and religious 
 equality with their countrymen, in every respect, forty 
 years before the * Catholic Relief Act * purported to 
 
Graft an and the Volunteers, 157 
 
 emancipate the Irish Catholics, who are not, indeed, 
 emancipated yet.'* 
 
 Side by side with this foolish act of Louis XIV. of 
 France, we find the Irish people ruined, beggared, per- 
 secuted, and hunted to the death, and the English his- 
 torian comes and says, ^^ Oh, we were only serving you 
 as your people and your own fellow-religionists m 
 France were serving us." The other reason which 
 Mr. Froude gives to justify these persecutions was 
 that the Irish Catholics were in favor of the Pretender 
 — that is to say, of the son of James II., and conse- 
 quently were hostile to the government. Now, to 
 that statement I can give, I think, a most emphatic 
 denial. The Irish Catholics had had quite enough of 
 the Stuarts ; they had shed quite enough of their 
 blood for that treacherous and shameless race ; they 
 had no interest whatever in the succession, nor cared 
 they one iota whether the Elector of Hanover or the 
 son of James Stuart succeeded to the throne of Eng- 
 land. For well they knew whether it was Hanoverian 
 or Stuart that ruled in England, the faction at home in 
 Ireland and the prejudices of the EnglisTi people would 
 make him, whoever he was, a tyrant over them and 
 over their nation. And thus the persecution went on, and 
 law after law was passed to make perfect the beggary 
 and the ruin of the Irish people, until at length Ireland 
 was reduced to such a state of misery that the very 
 name of Irishman was a reproach. Under pressure of 
 those crushing laws, a small number of the glorious race 
 had the weakness to change their faith and to deny the 
 
IS8 Lecture IV. 
 
 religion of their fathers. The name of an Irishman was 
 a reproach. My friends, Dean Swift was born in Ire- 
 land. Dean Swift is looked upon as a patriotic Irish- 
 man. Yet Dean Swift said that he no more con- 
 sidered himself an Irishman, because he happened to 
 be born in Ireland, than an Englishman chancing to be 
 born in Calcutta would consider himself a Hindoo. 
 Of the degradation of the Irish and their utter pros- 
 tration he went so far as to say, he would not think of 
 taking them into account on any matter of importance 
 any more than he would of consulting the swine. 
 Lord Macaulay gloats over the state of the Catholics 
 in Ireland then, and Mr. Froude views, perhaps not 
 without some complacency, their misery. Lord Macau- 
 lay calls them pariahs, and compares their position in 
 the disputes between the English and Irish Parliament 
 with that of *^ the red Indians m. the dispute between 
 Old England and New England about the Stamp Act." 
 And we find Bowes, the Lord Chancellor, laying down 
 the law quite coolly and calmly, and saying that ** in the 
 eye of the law no Catholic existed in Ireland.** Chief 
 Justice Robinson made a similar declaration. Here 
 are the words of his lordship the Chief Justice: ** It 
 appears *' he says, ** plain that the law does not sup- 
 pose any such person to exist as an Irish Roman 
 Catholic." Mr. Froude says that they favored the 
 Pretender, at the very time when the government 
 itself was attributing the quietude of the people in 
 Ireland, not to their prostration, not to their ruin, as 
 was the real case, but to their devoted loyalty to 
 
Graft an and the Volunteers, 1 59 
 
 the crown of England. The Irish people were quite 
 indifferent about the Pretender. They received at 
 the time some doubtful praise for their loyalty to the 
 House of Hanover. But, as Mr. Mitchel truly says, 
 *' If they took no part in the insurrections of 171 5 and 
 1745, it may be said (in their favor, not to their 
 dishonor) that it was on account of exhaustion and 
 impotence, not on account of loyalty. If they had 
 been capable at that time of attachment to the Protest- 
 ant succession, and of loyalty to the House of Hanover, 
 they would have been even more degraded than they 
 actually were." As a curious instance of the utter 
 ruin of the old race, and the shame which attached 
 even to the name of Irishman, we have at this time an 
 Irishman of the name of Phelim O'Neill, one of the 
 glorious old line of Tyrone, one in whose veins 
 flowed the blood of the great and the heroic Red 
 Hugh, who purpled the Blackwater, who struck the 
 Saxon at the Yellow I'ord, and purpled the 
 stream of the Blackwater with his blood. One 
 in whose veins flowed the perhaps still nobler 
 blood of the immortal Owen Roe O'Neill, the 
 glorious victor of Benburb. And this good 
 Phelim O'Neill changed his religion and became Prot- 
 estant. But it seemed to him a strange and unnat- 
 ural thing that a man of the name of O'Neill should be 
 a Protestant ; so he changed his name from 
 Phelim O'Neill and called himself Felix Neal. 
 There has been a good deal said lately about the 
 pronunciation of proper names and what they 
 
'l6o Lecture IV. 
 
 rhyme with. This man made his name rhyme 
 with eel — the slippery eel. Now, on this change 
 of the gentleman's name and religion, an old 
 parish priest wrote some Latin verses, which were 
 translated by Clarence Mangan. I will read them, just 
 to let you see how things were in Ireland at that time : 
 
 All things has Felix changed. He changed his name, 
 
 Yea, in himself he is no more the same. 
 
 Scorning to spend his days where he was reared, 
 
 To drag out life among the vulgar herd. 
 
 And trudge his way through bogs in bracks and brogues, 
 
 He changed his creed and joined the Saxon rogues 
 
 By whom his sires were robbed, and laid aside 
 
 The arms they bore for centuries with pride — 
 
 The " ship," the " salmon," and the famed " Red Hand " — 
 
 And blushed when called O'Neill in his own land. 
 
 Poor paltry skulker from thy noble race ! 
 
 Infelix Felix, weep for thy disgrace ! 
 
 But, my friends, the English ascendency, or the 
 Protestant ascendency in Ireland, if you will, seeing 
 now that they had got every penal law that they could 
 ask for, seemed to look upon the Irish race as extermi- 
 nated. This extermination in truth they had nearly 
 accomplished, for they had driven them into the wilds 
 and wastes of Connaught, and they would have 
 destroyed them all, only that the work was too great, 
 and that there was a certain something in the old 
 blood, in the old race, that terrified them when they 
 approached it. They had so far subdued the Catho- 
 lics that they thought now, at last, that their hands 
 were free, and nothing remained for them but to make 
 
Gr at tan and the Volunteers, i6i 
 
 Ireland, as Mr. Froude says, a garden. They were to 
 have every indulgence and every privilege. According- 
 ly they set to work. They had their own parliament. 
 No Catholic could come near them or come into their 
 towns — they were forbidden to show themselves at all. 
 The Protestant ascendency, however, were greatly sur- 
 prised to find that now that the Catholics were crushed 
 into the earth, England began to regard the Cromwel- 
 lians themselves with fear and hatred. What ! They, 
 the sons of the Puritans ! They, the brave men that 
 had slaughtered so many of the Irish and of the Cath- 
 olic religion ! Are they to be treated harshly ? Was 
 their trade, or their commerce, or their parliament to 
 be interfered with ? Ah ! now, indeed, Mr. Froude 
 finds tears, and weeps them over the injustice and over 
 the folly of England, because England interfered with 
 the commerce and with the trade of the Protestant as- 
 cendency in Ireland. These Protestant tradesmen were 
 first-class woolen weavers ; at last, the cloth they made 
 became the very best, and took the very highest prices 
 in all the markets of Europe, because the wool of the 
 Irish sheep was so fine. The English Parliament made 
 a law that the Irish traders were not to be allowed to 
 sell any more cloth ; they were not to go into any 
 more markets to rival their English fellow-merchants. 
 They were to stay at home ; they had the island, and 
 they might make the most of it ; but no freedom in 
 trade, nothing that would enrich Ireland — that the 
 English Parliament forbade. Now, Mr. Froude as- 
 signs as the reason for this legislation, that England at 
 
1 62 Lecture IV. 
 
 that time happened to be under the control of a paltry 
 lot of selfish money-jobbers and merchants. Mere ac- 
 cident, according to him ; an accident, he confesses, 
 which so discontented the Orange faction in Ireland 
 that many hundreds of them emigrated and came ovef 
 to America to settle m the New England States. 
 Thither, he tells us, they carried their hatred with them, 
 and that feeling which helped break up the British Em- 
 pire. I have another theory of this great question. 
 I hold that it was no accident of the hour at all that 
 made England place her restrictive laws on the Irish 
 commerce and trade. I hold that it was the settled 
 policy of England. These men who were now in the 
 ascendency in Ireland imagined that because they had 
 ruined and beggared the ancient race and the men of the 
 ancient faith, therefore they were friends, and would be 
 regarded as friends by England. I hold it was at that 
 time, and, in a great measure, is to-day, the fixed pol- 
 icy of England to keep Ireland down, to be hostile to 
 Ireland, no matter who lives in it» whether he be 
 Catholic or Protestant, whether he be Norman, Crom- 
 wellian, or Celt. *' Your fathers,** says Curran, speak- 
 ing to the men of his time, a hundred years afterwards, 
 '* your ancestors thought themselves the oppressors of 
 their fellow-subjects ; but they were only their jailers ; 
 and the justice of Providence would have been frustra- 
 ted if their own slavery had not been the punishment 
 for their baseness and their folly." That slavery came, 
 and it fell on commerce. The Protestant inhabitants 
 of Ireland, the Protestant traders of Ireland, the plant- 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers, 163 
 
 ers, and the sons of the planters, were beggared by 
 the hostile legislation of England, simply because they 
 were now in Ireland, and had an interest in the Irish 
 soil, and in the welfare of the country. The inimita- 
 ble Swift, speaking on this subject, makes use of the 
 following quaint fable of Ovid. He says, *^ The fable 
 which Ovid relates of Arachne and Pallas is to this 
 purpose : The goddess had heard of a certain Arachne 
 — a virgin famed for spinning and weaving. They both 
 met upon a trial of skill, and Pallas, finding herself 
 almost equalled in her own art, stung with rage and 
 envy, knocked her rival down, turned her into a spi- 
 der, enjoining her to spin and weave forever out of 
 her own bowels, and in a very narrow compass. I 
 confess," the Dean goes on, *^ that from a boy I always 
 pitied poor Arachne, and never could heartily love the 
 goddess, on account of so cruel and unjust a sentence, 
 which, however, is fully executed upon us by England, 
 with the further addition of rigor and severity, for the 
 greatest part of our bowels and vitals is extracted, 
 without allowing us the liberty of spinning or weaving 
 them." Thus he writes of this strange piece of legis- 
 lation, which Mr. Froude acknowledges. The Irish 
 wool was famous, and the English were outbid for it 
 by the French manufacturers. The French were will- 
 ing to give more money for a pound of Irish wool, 
 and the English passed a law that the Irish people, 
 the farmers, could not sell their wool anywhere but in 
 England ; so they fixed their price on it, and they 
 took the wool, made cloth, and, as the Dean says, 
 
164 Lecture IV, 
 
 poor Ireland — Arachne — had to give her bowels with- 
 out the pleasure of ppinning or weaving. Then the 
 Dean goes on to say, ^* The Scriptures tell us that op- 
 pression makes the wise man mad, therefore, the rea- 
 son that some men in Ireland are not mad, is because*, 
 they are not wise men/* However, it were to be 
 wished that oppression would in time teach a 
 little wisdom to fools. Well, we call Dean Swift 
 a patriot. How little did he think, great man as he 
 was, of the oppression, compared with which the re- 
 striction upon the wool was nothing, the oppression 
 that beggared and ruined a whole people, that drove 
 them from their land, that drove them from every 
 pleasure in life, that drove them from their country, 
 that maddened them to desperation, and all because 
 they had Irish names, Irish blood, and because they 
 would not give up the faith which their consciences 
 told them was true. And now, my friends, Mr. 
 Froude, having related how these unjust restrictive 
 laws forced the Protestant operatives to come to 
 America, tries to enlist the sympathies of the Amer- 
 ican people in their behalf. If he stopped there I 
 would not have a word to say to the learned historian. 
 When an Englishman claims the sympathy of this or 
 any other land for men of his people and of his re- 
 ligion, if they are deserving of that sympathy, I, an 
 Irishman, am always ready and the first to grant it 
 to them with all my heart. And, therefore, I do not 
 find the slightest fault with this learned Englishman 
 when he challenges the sympathy of America for 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers, 165 
 
 the Orangemen of Ireland and the Protestants who 
 came to this country. If these men were deserving 
 of American sympathy, why not let them have it? 
 But whilst Mr. Froude claims sympathy for the Prot- 
 estant emigrants from Ireland, as staunch republicans 
 and lovers of American liberty, he tells us that the 
 Catholics of Ireland, on the other hand, were clamor- 
 ing at the foot of the throne, telling King George III. 
 that they would be only too happy to go out at his 
 command to shoot the American people in his cause. 
 Is that statement true or not? My friends, the learn- 
 ed gentleman quoted a petition presented in 1775, the 
 very year America began to assert her independence. 
 In that petition he states that Lord Fingal and 
 several other Catholic noblemen of Ireland, speaking in 
 the name of the Irish people, pronounced the Amer- 
 ican revolution an unnatural rebellion, and manifested 
 their desire to go out and devote themselves for the 
 best of king's, to the suppression of American liberty. 
 First of all I ask, when, at any time in our history, has 
 any one of these Catholic lords been authorized to speak 
 in the name of the Irish people ? But, not doubting 
 Mr. Froude*s word at all, and only anxious to satisfy 
 myself by historic research, I have looked for this peti- 
 tion. I have found, indeed, a petition in Curry's col- 
 lection — a petition signed by Lord Fingal and by a 
 number of other Catholic Irishmen, addressed to his 
 Majesty the King, in which they protest their loyalty 
 in terms of slavish and servile adulation, but in that 
 petition I have not been able to discover one single 
 
1 66 Lecture IV. 
 
 word about the American Revolution, not a single word 
 of address to the king about a desire to destroy the 
 liberties of America. Not one word! I have sought, 
 and my friends have sought, in the records and in 
 every document that was at our hands, for this peti- * 
 tion of which Mr. Froude speaks, and I could not find 
 it. There must be a mistake somewhere or other. It 
 is strange that a petition of so much importance 
 would not be published amongst the documents of the 
 time. We know that Sir John Blacquiere was secre- 
 tary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in 1775. Na- 
 turally enough the petition would go to him, not to 
 rest with him, but to be presented to the king. And 
 yet, I think I may state with certainty that the only 
 petition that was presented to the king in 1775 was 
 the one of which I speak, and in which there was not 
 a single word about America or the American Revolu- 
 tion. But the learned historian's resources are so 
 much more ample than mine; his resources of time, of 
 preparation, and of talent ; his resources in the varied 
 sources of information amongst which he has lived 
 and passed his years, that no doubt he will be able to 
 explain this. 
 
 The Catholics of Ireland were down in the dust ; 
 the Catholics of Ireland had no voice; they had not as 
 much as a vote for a parish beadle, much less for a Mem- 
 ber of Parliament. Does Mr. Froude mean to tell the 
 American people that these unfortunate wretches 
 would not have welcomed the cry that came from across 
 the Atlantic ; the cry of a people who rose like a giant, 
 
Gr at tan and the Volunteers, 167 
 
 yet only an infant in age, proclaiming the eternal liberty 
 of men and of nations, and proclaiming that no people 
 upon the earth should be taxed without representa- 
 tion, and giving the first blow, right across the face of 
 England, that the old tyrant had received for many a 
 year — a blow before which England reeled, and came 
 to her knees ? Does he mean to tell you or me, citi- 
 zens of America, that such an event as this would be 
 distasteful to the poor Irish Catholics of Ireland ? It 
 is true that they had crushed them as far as they could, 
 but they had not taken all the manhood out of them. 
 Deep and earnest was the sympathy of Catholic Ire- 
 land with America, and many a proof of her love did 
 ancient Erin give the great young country. Lord 
 Howe, the English general, in that year of 177S, writes 
 home to his government in England from America, and 
 says : ^^ Send me out German troops.** You know 
 England was in the habit of employing Hessians. I 
 don't say this with the slightest feeling of disrespect. 
 I have the deepest respect for the great German ele- 
 ment in this country ; but in these times, we know 
 that the troops of small German states were hired out 
 by their princes to whoever took them, and engaged 
 them to fight their battles. *^ Send me out German 
 troops," he says, *^for I have a great dislike for the 
 Catholic soldiers, as they are not at all to be depended 
 upon.'* They sent out four thousand troops from Ire- 
 land ; but listen to this. Arthur Lee was agent of the 
 American government in 1777, and he says, writing to 
 Washington, '* The resources of our enemy, that is to 
 
1 68 Lecture IV. 
 
 say, England, are almost annihilated in Germany, and 
 their last resort is to the Roman Catholics of Ireland ; 
 they have already experienced their unwillingness to 
 go, every man of a regiment raised there last year 
 having obliged them to ship him off tied and bound.* 
 When the Irish Catholic soldiers heard that they were 
 to go to America to cut the throats of the American 
 people, and to scalp them, they swore they never 
 would do it ; and they had to take them, tie them, and 
 carry them on board the ships. But Arthur Lee goes 
 on to say, *^ And most certainly they will desert more 
 than any other troops whatsoever." Louden, a histo- 
 rian of the time, tells us that the war against America 
 was not very popular, even in England. *^ But in Ire- 
 land," he says, *' the people assumed the cause of 
 America through sympathy." 
 
 Let us leave Ireland, and go to America. Let us 
 see how the great men who were building up the 
 magnificent edifice of their country's freedom, lay- 
 ing the foundation in their own best blood, in those 
 days — how they regarded the Irish? In 1790, the 
 immortal George Washington received an address 
 from the Catholics of America, signed by Bishop 
 Carroll, of Maryland, and many others. Replying 
 to that address, the calm, magnificent man makes 
 use of these words: *' I hope," he says, ** ever to see 
 America amongst the foremost nations in examples 
 of justice and liberality, and I presume that your fel- 
 low-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which 
 you took in the accomplishment of their revolution, 
 
G rattan and the Volunteers, 1 69 
 
 and in the establishment of their government ; or the 
 important assistance they received from a nation in 
 which the Roman CathoHc reHgion is professed.** In 
 the month of December, 1781, the Friendly Sons of 
 St. Patrick, in Philadelphia, elected George Washing- 
 ton a member of their society. These Friendly Sons 
 of St. Patrick were great friends of the great Ameri- 
 can Father of his Country. When his army lay at Val- 
 ley Forge, twenty-seven members of this society of the 
 Friendly Sonssu bscribed between them, in July, 1780, 
 ;^i03,5oo sterling, of Pennsylvania currency, for the 
 American troops, who were in want of means. George 
 Washington accepts the fellowship of their society, 
 and he says : '' I accept with singular pleasure the en- 
 sign of so worthy a fraternity as that of the Sons of 
 St. Patrick, in this city — a society distinguished for the 
 firm adherence of its members to the glorious cause in 
 which we are embarked." During that time what 
 greater honor could have been bestowed by Washing- 
 ton than that w^iich he bestowed upon the Irish ? 
 When the traitor Arnold betrayed the cause at West 
 Point, Washington was obliged to choose the very 
 best and most reliable soldiers in his army, and send 
 them to West Point, to take the place that was so well- 
 nigh being betrayed by the traitor. From his whole 
 army he selected the celebrated Pennsylvania Line, as 
 they were called, and these men were mainly made up of 
 Irishmen. Nay, more, not merely of Protestant Irish- 
 men, or Northern men, or of those who, in that time, 
 
 were called Scotch Irish, for that was the name which, 
 
 8 
 
I/O Lecture /F. 
 
 in the year of the Revolution, designated Mr. Froude's 
 friends, who emigrated from Ulster. But, looking 
 over the muster-roll of the Pennsylvania Line, we find 
 such names as Duffy, Maguire, and O'Brien ; these and 
 such as these are the names not of Palatines nor of n 
 Scotch planters in Ireland, but they are the names of 
 thoroughbred Irish Celts. They fought and bled for 
 Washington, and Washington loved them. And now, 
 I wish to gxw^ you a little incident of that celebrated 
 corps, to let you see how their hearts were in 
 relation to America. ^^ During the American Rev- 
 olution," says Mr. Carey, ** a band of Irishmen were 
 embodied in the defense of the country of their adop- 
 tion, against the country of their birth ; they formed 
 the major part of the celebrated Pennsylvania Line ; 
 they bravely fought and bled for the United States ; 
 many of these sealed their attachment with their 
 lives ; their adopted country neglected them somewhat, 
 the wealthy, independent, and the luxurious, for whom 
 they fought, were now rioting in the superfluities of 
 life, while the defenders were literally half starved, 
 half naked, their shoeless feet marked with blood their 
 tracks upon the highways. They long bore their 
 grievances patiently ; they had long murmured ; they 
 j-emonstrated, imploring the necessaries of life, but in 
 vain ; a deaf ear was turned to their complaints : they 
 felt indignant at the cold neglect and ingratitude of 
 the country for which thousands of their companions 
 in arms had expired on the crimson field of battle ; 
 they held arms in their hands, and they mutinied/' 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers, i/i 
 
 Well, as soon as the English commanders had heard 
 that the Irish soldiers had mutinied, what did they do? 
 Intelligence was carried to the British camp, and it over- 
 spread joy and gladness, that Lord Howe hoped that 
 the period had arrived for the end of this rebellion, as 
 it was termed, and that there was a glorious opportuni- 
 ty to crush out the embryo Republic. He counted much 
 on the natural resentment of the natives of the Emerald 
 Isle. He knew how irritable their tempers were ; he 
 calculated upon diminishing the strength and numbers 
 of the rebels, by an accession of the same numbers to 
 the royal army. Messengers were dispatched to the 
 mutineers, and they had a carte blanche to make their 
 own terms ; promises were to be made to them if 
 the prodigal children feeding upon husks should return 
 to the plentiful fields of their royal masters. Liberal- 
 ity itself presided in their offers of abundant supplies, 
 and provisions ample enough for their hearts* content ; 
 all arrears of pay, and pardon for past offences, were 
 offered to them. There was not, however, any hesita- 
 tion amongst these poor, neglected warriors. They 
 refused to renounce poverty, nakedness, and ingrati- 
 tude. Splendid temptations were held out to them in 
 vain ; there was no Judas, there were no Arnolds 
 amongst them. They seized upon their tempters and 
 trampled upon their shining gold. They sent them to 
 their generals, and these miserable wretches paid their 
 forfeited lives for attempting to seduce a band of for- 
 lorn, deserted, but illustrious heroes. *^ We prate,*' 
 he says, '' about the old Roman and Grecian patriotism. 
 
1/2 Lecture IV. 
 
 One-half of it is false, and in the other half there is 
 nothing that excels these noble traits in our army; 
 which are worthy of the pencil of a West, or a Trum- 
 bull." Mark how it is that America regarded them ! 
 mark the testimony of some of America's greatest , 
 men ! Mr. Froude seems to think that the American 
 people looked upon the Irish nation and the Irish peo- 
 ple as represented in their great contest by the Prot- 
 estant emigrants from Ireland. Was this the view that 
 America and her statesmen took of them? No! 
 Here is the testimony of George Washington Parke 
 Custis, the adopted son of George Washington. The 
 Irish, in 1829, won Catholic Emancipation ; and before 
 that time, when they were struggHng for emancipation, 
 they appealed for sympathy and moral support to 
 America ; and now this is how this great American 
 gentleman speaks of them : " And why is this impos- 
 ing appeal made to our sympathies? It is an appeal 
 from that very Ireland, whose generous sons, alike in the 
 days of our gloom and of our glory, shared in our mis- 
 fortunes and joined in our success; who, with undaunt- 
 ed courage breasted the storm which once, threatening 
 to overwhelm us, howled with fearful and desolating 
 fury through this now happy land ; who, with aspira- 
 tions deep and fervent for our cause, whether under 
 the walls of the Castle of Dublin, in the shock of our 
 liberty's battles, or in the feeble and expiring accents 
 of famine and misery, amidst the horrors of the prison, 
 ship, cried from their hearts, '* God save America ! 
 Tell me not," he goes on to say, ''tell me not of the 
 
Gr at tan and the Volunteers. 173 
 
 aid which we received from another European nation, 
 in the struggle for independence ; that aid was most, 
 nay, all essential, to our ultimate success ; but remem- 
 ber, years of the conflict had rolled aw^ay.'* The cap- 
 ture of Burgoyne had ratified the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence — the renowned combats of the Heights of 
 Charleston and Fort Moultrie; the bloody and disas- 
 trous days of Long Island, of Brandywine, and Ger- 
 mantown ; the glories of Trenton, Princeton, and Mon- 
 mouth, all had occurred ; and the rank grass had grown 
 over the grave of many a poor Irishman who had died 
 for America, ere the Flag of the Lilies floated on the 
 field by the Star Spangled Banner. " But," he adds, 
 " of the operatives in war — I mean the soldiers — up to 
 the coming of the French, Ireland had furnished in 
 the ratio of one hundred for one of any foreign nation 
 whatever/' Then this generous American gentleman, 
 to whom Ireland appealed for sympathy — for Mr. 
 Froude's is not the first appeal that has been made to 
 the people of America — this high-minded gentleman 
 goes on to say, " Then honored be the old good ser- 
 vice of the sons of Erin, in the War of Independ- 
 ence. Let the shamrock be entwined with the 
 laurels of the revolution ; and truth and justice, 
 guiding the pen of history, inscribe on the tablets 
 of America's remembrance, Eternal Gratitude to 
 Irishmen ! " Remember that this was Washington's 
 son ; remember that he tells us that the old gray- 
 headed, crippled veterans, who had fought under his 
 father's banner in that war of independence, were 
 
174 Lecture IV. 
 
 accustomed to come to his house, and there he 
 would receive them at his door, and bring them in ; 
 and he tells us affectionately of one old Irishman who 
 had fought in the wars ; who, after drinking the 
 health of the gentleman who had entertained him, 
 lifted up his aged eyes, and with tears he said, '' Now 
 let me drink to General Washington, who is in Heaven 
 this day.'* He says on the same occasion, ** Ameri- 
 cans, recall to your mind the recollections of the 
 heroic time when Irishmen were our friends, and when 
 in the whole world we hadn't a friend besides. Look 
 to the period that tried men's souls, and you will 
 find that the sons of Erin rushed to our ranks, and, 
 amid the clash of steel, on many a memorable day, 
 many a John Byrne was not idle." Remember, he 
 does not say many a Spraggs, or many a Gibbs, or 
 men that came over with Cromwell, but — honest John 
 Byrne. Who was this honest John Byrne of 
 whom he speaks? He was an Irish soldier of 
 Washington's, who, taken prisoner by the English 
 and put on board a prison-ship, was left in chains in 
 whe hold of the ship, pestilence being on board. He 
 was more than half starved ; he was scarcely able, 
 when he was called on deck, to crawl like a poor, 
 stricken creature to the commander's feet to hear 
 what sentence was to be pronounced upon him. And 
 when the English commander offered him liberty, life, 
 clothing, food, and money, if he would give up the 
 cause in which he was taken prisoner and join the 
 ranks of the British army ; with a voice scarcely able 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers, 175 
 
 to speak ; raising a hand scarcely able to lift itseli 
 up, the Irishman looked to Heaven, and cried out, 
 '* Hurrah for America ! '* In the face of such facts, 
 in the face of such testimony, in the presence of the 
 honored name and record of George Washington, tes- 
 tifying to what the Irish Catholic men have done for 
 America, Mr. Froude speaks as faintly as if he were 
 speaking to the hurricane that sweeps over the ocean, 
 when he tries to impress the American mind and the 
 American people with any prejudice against the poor 
 Catholics of Ireland. Speaking in the year 1809, 
 when America was preparing for her second war with 
 England, MacNevin records that ^^ One of the offences 
 charged upon the Irish, and amongst the many pre- 
 texts for refusing redress to the Catholics of Ireland, 
 was that sixteen thousand of them fought on the side 
 of America.*' But he adds *^ that many more thou- 
 sands are ready to maintain the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, and that will be their second offence.'* 
 
 Now, my friends, there are other testimonies as well 
 as these of the men of the time ; we have the testi- 
 mony of American literary gentlemen, such, for instance, 
 as that of Mr. Paulding. Here are the words of that 
 distinguished gentleman : '^ The history of Ireland's 
 unhappy connection with England exhibits, from first 
 to last, a detail of the most persevering, galling, grind- 
 ing, insulting, and systematic oppression to be found 
 anywhere, except among the helots of Sparta. There 
 is not a national feeling that has not been insulted and 
 trodden under foot, or a national right that has not 
 
i^t Lecture IV, 
 
 been withheld, until fear forced it from the grasp of 
 England, or a dear or ancient prejudice that has not 
 been violated, in that abused country. As Christians, 
 the people of Ireland have been denied, under penalties 
 and disqualifications, the exercise of the rites of the 
 Catholic religion, venerable for its antiquity, admira- 
 ble for its unity, and consecrated in the belief of some 
 of the best men that ever breathed. As men they 
 have been deprived of the common rights of British 
 subjects, under the pretext that they were incapable 
 of enjoying them, for which pretext they had no other 
 foundation than their resistance of oppression, only the 
 more severe by being sanctioned by the laws. England 
 first denied them the means of improvement, and then 
 insulted them with the imputation of barbarism.*' 
 Another distinguished American, Mr. Johnson, says : 
 ** There is no instance, even in the Ten Persecutions, 
 of such severity as that which has been exercised over 
 the Catholics of Ireland.*' Thus think and thus speak 
 the men whose names are bright in the records of liter- 
 ary America. Take, again, the unanimous address 
 agreed to by the several members of the Legislature 
 of Maryland. Speaking of Ireland, these American 
 senators and legislators say, ** This dependency of 
 Great Britain has languished under an oppression long 
 reprobated by all humanity, and discountenanced by 
 all just policy. It would argue a penury of human 
 feelings, an ignorance of human rights, to submit pa- 
 tiently. In the lapse of centuries which have witnessed 
 the struggles of Ireland, but only with partial success, 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers, i "j^j 
 
 rebellion and insurrection have continued, with but 
 short intervals of tranquillity. America has opened 
 her arms to the oppressed of all nations. No people 
 have availed themselves of the asylum with more alac- 
 rity or in greater numbers than the Irish. High is 
 the meed of praise, rich is the reward that Irishmen 
 have merited through the gratitude of America : as 
 heroes and statesmen they honor their adopted 
 country." Until such words as these are wiped out 
 of the records of American history, until the gen- 
 erous sentiments which inspired them have ceased 
 to be a portion of the American nature, and not 
 until then, will Mr. Froude get the verdict which 
 he seeks from America to-day. I have looked through 
 the American archives and I have found that the foun- 
 dation of these sympathies lay in the simple fact that 
 the Catholics of Ireland were heart and soul with you, 
 American gentlemen, with you and your fathers in that 
 glorious struggle. I find in the third volume of the 
 American archives a letter from Ireland, dated Septem- 
 ber 17, 1775, to a friend in New York, in which the 
 American gentleman writing, says : ^^ Most of the peo- 
 ple here wish well to the cause in which you are en- 
 gaged. They are raising recruits throughout this 
 kingdom. (The men are told that they are only going 
 to Edinburgh to learn military discipline and then to 
 return^ Before they got a single Irishman to enlist 
 they had to tell him a lie, well knowing that if he 
 thought they were going to arm him and to send him 
 to America to fight against the American people, he 
 
 8^ 
 
17B Lecture IV. 
 
 would never enter the ranks of the British army for 
 any such purpose. A certain Major Roche went down 
 to Cork to recruit men for America, and he made a 
 great speech to them ; it was very laughable. He called 
 upon them as Irishmen, by all that they held sacred, 
 the glorious nationality to which they belonged, the 
 splendid monarch that governed them, and then he 
 held up the golden guineas and the pound notes before 
 them — and here is the record of the affair in the third 
 volume of the American archives : '* An account 
 of the success of Major Roche in raising recruits to 
 fight against America. The service was so disagree- 
 able to the people of Ireland in general, that few of 
 the recruiting officers could prevail upon a man to en- 
 list and fight against their American brethren.'' That 
 same year, in the British House of Commons, Mr. 
 Johnson says : ** I maintain that the sense of the best 
 and the wisest men in the country are on the side of 
 the Americans, and in Ireland three to one are on the 
 side of the Americans." In the House of Lords, in 
 the same year, of '75, the Duke of Richmond makes 
 this statement : " Attempts have been made to enlist 
 the Irish Roman Catholics, but the minister knows 
 well that these attempts have been proved unsuccess- 
 ful." We find again the Congress of America ad- 
 dressed the people of Ireland in that memorable year 
 of 1775, and here are the words that America's first 
 Congress sends over the Atlantic waves to the afflicted, 
 down-trodden Irish: ''Accept our most grateful ac- 
 knowledgment for the friendly disposition you have 
 
Grattmi and the Volunteers, 1 79 
 
 always shown towards us. We know that you are not 
 without your grievances ; we sympathize with you in 
 your distress, and we are pleased to find that the design 
 of subjugating us has persuaded the administration to 
 dispense to Ireland some vagrant rays of ministerial 
 sunshine. Even the tender mercies of the govern- 
 ment have long been cruel towards you. In the rich 
 pastures of Ireland many hungry parasites are fed, 
 and grow strong to labor in her destruction." We 
 find such words as these addressed, not to the Pala- 
 tines and planters ; for if the Congress of America was 
 addressing the planters and Cromwellians in Ireland, 
 they would not have used such language as this : "" In 
 the rich pastures of Ireland many hungry parasites are 
 fed, and grow strong to labor in its destruction." 
 
 Benjamin Franklin, of glorious and immortal name, 
 was in Versailles, as minister from the American gov- 
 ernment. He writes to the people of Ireland in Octo- 
 ber, 1778, and says: *^ The misery and distress which 
 your ill-fated country has been so frequently exposed 
 to and has so often experienced, by such a combination 
 of rapine, treachery, and violence as would have dis- 
 graced the name of g-jvernment in the most arbitrary 
 country in the world, has most sincerely affected your 
 friends in America, and has engaged the most serious 
 attention of Congress." Now I come to another hon- 
 ored name, that of Gulian C. Verplanck. When the 
 Catholic Emancipation Act was passed, there was a 
 banquet in the City of New York to celebrate the 
 event, and this distinguished American gentleman pro- 
 
i8o Lecture IV, 
 
 posed a health or a toast, and it was a Catholic toast : 
 ^* The Penal Laws — Rejtiiescat in pace — may they rest 
 in peace.'* 
 
 ^* And yet," says Mr. Verplanck, ** I have a good 
 word to say for them." What was that good word ? 
 Here it is : '' That in the glorious struggle for our in- 
 dependence, and in our more recent contest for na- 
 tional rights, those laws gave the American flag the 
 support of hundreds and thousands of brave hearts 
 and strong arms, at the same time contributing an 
 equal portion of intellectual and moral powers." 
 
 Let us come down to our time, passing over the 
 magnificent testimony of Henry Clay, and his sympa- 
 thies for Catholic Ireland. America, even at this hour, 
 is mourning over the grave of a great man. But a few 
 days ago the nation accompanied to his last resting- 
 place William H. Seward. And this illustrious Amer- 
 ican statesman said, in 1847, '' Ireland not only sym- 
 pathized profoundly with the trans-Atlantic colonists 
 in their complaints of usurpation, under which she suf- 
 fered more sorely than they ; but, with inherent be- 
 nevolence and ardor, she yielded at once to the sway 
 of the great American idea of universal emancipation. 
 The bitter memory of a stream of ages lifted up her 
 thoughts, and she was ready to follow to the war for 
 the rights of human nature, ' the propitious God, who 
 seemed to lead the way.' " 
 
 Finally, one extract and I have done with this por- 
 tion of my lecture. I find that such were the rela- 
 tions between Ireland and America in that struggle. 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers, 1 8 1 
 
 that a certain Captain Wicks, of the ship Reprisal, 
 in the summer of 1776 captured three prizes near the 
 West Indies, which were English property. He detail- 
 ed some of his own men on board of them, and sent 
 them to the nearest port to be adjudged as prizes. 
 Shortly after he came across another vessel, and he 
 let her go, finding she was Irish property. The Mar- 
 quis Chasteloux, a distinguished Frenchman who was 
 in America in 1782, writes thus: ''An Irishman, the 
 instant he sets his foot on American soil, becomes 
 ipso facto an American. This was uniformly the 
 case during the whole of the late war." Remember, 
 this Frenchman was fighting for you. '' While Eng- 
 lishmen and Scotchmen were treated with jealousy 
 and distrust, even with the best recommendations of 
 zeal and attachment to the cause, the native of Ire- 
 land stood in need of no other certificate than his dia- 
 lect." Which shows that what our French friend is 
 speaking of was not a Palatine nor a planter, but a 
 genuine Paddy — and no mistake about it. His sin- 
 cerity was never called in question ; he was supposed 
 to have a sympathy with suffering, and every one 
 decided, as it were intuitively, in his favor. '' Indeed," 
 he adds, '' their conduct in the late war amply justi- 
 fied their favorable opinion, for whilst the Irish emi- 
 grant was fighting the battles of America by sea and 
 land, the Irish merchants, principally of Charleston, 
 Baltimore, and Philadelphia, labored with indefatiga- 
 ble zeal at all hazards to promote the spirit of enter- 
 prise, and increase the wealth and maintain the credit 
 
1 82 Lecture IV. 
 
 of the country. Their purses always were opened, 
 and their persons devoted to the country's cause, 
 and on more than one imminent occasion , Con- 
 gress itself, and the very existence of America, 
 probably, owed its preservation to the fidelity and%^ 
 firmness of the Irish. I had the honor," he says, 
 *' of dining with an Irish society, composed of the 
 wealthiest merchants and others of the city, in 
 the city tavern of Philadelphia, on St. Patrick's Day." 
 Mr. Froude must not run away with the assertion 
 that the Irish merchants of Charleston and Baltimore 
 and Philadelphia were the Puritan settlers. If they 
 had been, they would have gone home and eaten a 
 cold dinner on St. Patrick's Day. 
 
 So much for America and Ireland's relations with her. 
 When the English government asked for four thousand 
 Irish soldiers to go out and fight Americans, they 
 offered to send to Ireland four thousand Protestant 
 Hessians, and the Irish Parliament had the grace to 
 refuse the Plessians. They said ^^ No ! If the coun- 
 try is in danger we can arm some of our Protestant 
 people, and they can keep the peace." 
 
 Out of this sprang the ** Volunteers of '82." Mr. 
 Froude has little or nothing to say of them, conse- 
 quently, as I am answering, or trying to answer him, I 
 must restrict also their record. Ireland, in 1776, be- 
 gan to arm. This movement was altogether a Protest- 
 ant one, and confined to the North. The Catholics 
 of Ireland were ground, as it were, into the very dust. 
 No sooner, however, did the Catholics hear that their 
 
Gr at tan and the Volunteers, 183 
 
 Protestant oppressors were anxious to do something 
 for the old land, than they came and said to them, 
 *' We will forgive everything you have done to us ; we 
 will leave you the land of Ireland, the wealth and 
 the commerce ; all we ask of you is to let us help you 
 for our common country." At first they were refused, 
 and, my friends, when they found they would not be 
 allowed to enter the ranks of the Volunteers, they had 
 the generosity, out of their poverty, to collect money 
 and hand it over to clothe the army of their Protest- 
 ant fellow-citizens. Anything for Ireland. Anything 
 for the man that would lift his hand up for Ireland, 
 no matter what his religion was. The old generous 
 spirit was there ; the love that never could be extin- 
 guished was there ; self-sacrificing as of old ; aye, the 
 strong love for any man, no matter who he was, that 
 was a friend of their native land. 
 
 But after a time our Protestant friends in the Volun- 
 teers began to think that these Catholics, after all, were 
 fine, strapping fellows. Somehow, centuries of per- 
 secution could not knock the manhood out of them. 
 *' They be strong men," says an old writer, '' and can bear 
 more of hard living, hunger, and thirst, than any other 
 people that we know of." God knows their capabili- 
 ties of enduring nakedness, hunger, and thirst, and 
 every other form of misery, were well tested ? 
 
 Accordingly, we find that in 1780 there were fifty 
 thousand Catholics amongst the Volunteers — every 
 man of them with arms in his hands. Mr. Froude 
 says that Grattan — the immortal Grattan — that whilst 
 
184 Lecture IV. 
 
 he wished well for Ireland — that whilst he was irre- 
 proachable in every wny, public or private — that at this 
 time he was guilty of a great mistake. England, 
 says the historian, had long ruled Ireland badly, but 
 had learned a lesson from America, and she was now* 
 anxious to govern Ireland well, and no sooner was an 
 abuse pointed out than it was immediately remedied, 
 and if just laws were wanted they were immediately 
 granted ; and the mistake Grattan made was that instead 
 of insisting on just legislation from England, he insisted 
 for the legitimate independence of Ireland ; that the 
 Irish should have the making of their own laws. Thus, 
 according to Mr. Froude, the energies of the nation, 
 which were wasted in political contention, could have 
 been husbanded to induce England to grant just and 
 fair laws. But he goes on the assumption, my dear 
 American friends and others — the gentleman goes on 
 the assumption that England was willing to redress 
 grievances, to repeal the bad laws and make good ones, 
 and he proves this assertion by saying ** that she struck 
 off of the wrists of the Irish merchants the chains of 
 their commercial slavery, and that she restored to Ire- 
 land her trade." You remember that this trade was 
 taken away from them : the woollen trade, and nearly 
 every other form of trade was discountenanced or 
 ruined. 
 
 Now, I wish for the sake of the honor of England 
 that she was as generous, or even as just, as Mr. Froude 
 represents her, and as he no doubt would wish her to 
 be ; but we have the fact before us that in 1779, when 
 
Grattan and the Volufiteers, 185 
 
 a movement was made to repeal the laws restricting 
 the commerce of Ireland, the English Parliament, the 
 English King, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and 
 the English Government opposed it to the very death. 
 They would not have it — not one fetter would they 
 strike off from the chain that encumbered even the 
 Protestants and the planters of Ireland. And it was 
 only when Grattan rose up in the Irish Parliament and 
 insisted that Ireland should get back her trade — it was 
 only then that England consented — because there 
 were fifty thousand armed Volunteers outside. 
 
 The state of Ireland at the time is thus described : 
 " Such is the state of the Constitution that three mil- 
 lions of good, faithful subjects in their native land are 
 excluded from every trust, power, and emolument in 
 the state, civil and military ; excluded from all cor- 
 porate rights and immunities ; excluded from grand 
 juries, and restrained in petty juries ; excluded in every 
 direction from every trust, from every incorporated 
 society, and from every establishment, occasional or 
 fixed, that was instituted for public defense ; from the 
 bank, from the bench, from the exchange, from the 
 university, from the college of physicians — from 
 what were they not excluded ? " asks the writer. 
 " There is no institution which the wit of man has in- 
 vented, or the progress of society has produced, which 
 private charity or public munificence has founded for 
 the advancement of education around us, for the per- 
 manent relief of age, infirmity, and misfortune, from 
 the participation of the benefits of which, on all occa- 
 
1 86 Lecture IV, 
 
 slons, the Catholics of Ireland were not carefully ex- 
 cluded." 
 
 Grattan rose up in the Senate, and, lifting up his 
 heroic hand and voice to heaven, he swore before the 
 God of justice that this should come to an end. The%. 
 English Government heard him with a determination 
 as great as that of the Irish patriot, and swore equally 
 that this should remain the law. Was it not time to 
 assert for Ireland her independence? Mr. Froude 
 claims that England willingly consented to give up the 
 restrictions on Irish commerce when Grattan proposed 
 it in the House. An official of the government, named 
 Hussey Burgh, rose up, to the astonishment of the 
 government, and seconded Grattan^s resolution, to the 
 rage and consternation of the government factions, as 
 was shown by the unequivocal demonstration of the 
 executive of the ministerial bench. Hussey Burgh 
 was one of the most fascinating men of the day ; he, 
 of whom it was thought patriotism was impossible, 
 moved ^*That we take up the question, and represent 
 to his Majesty that it was not by any temporary ex- 
 pedients, but by free trade alone, that this nation is 
 now to be saved from impending ruin." 
 
 While they were fighting the government within, 
 Grattan took good care to have the Volunteers drawn 
 out in the streets of Dublin — there they were in their 
 thousands — armed men, drilled men — and they had 
 their cannons with them, and about the mouths of the 
 guns they had tied a label, or card, with these words : 
 *^ Free Trade for Ireland, or else ." 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers. 187 
 
 So it happened that Lord North was obh'ged, greatly 
 against his will, to introduce measures to restore to 
 Ireland her trade. Now, I ask, was not Henry Grat- 
 tan justified, seeing that it was only at the cannon's 
 mouth he could obtain justice from the Parliament of 
 England, when he said : *^ This English Parliament 
 will never do us justice, and, in the name of God, now 
 that we have our men armed around us, let us demand 
 for Ireland the perfect independence of the people 
 from the Parliament of England, and the right to make 
 whatever laws that are most conducive to the welfare 
 of our own people." 
 
 It is perfectly true that Grattan failed ; it is perfectly 
 true that although that declaration of independence 
 was proclaimed by law, and, as Mr. Froude observes, 
 '* Home Rule was tried in Ireland from '82 to '99, and 
 it was a failure " — all this is true ; but why was it so, 
 my friends ? Reflect upon this ; the Irish Parliament 
 did not represent the nation. The Irish Parliament 
 consisted of three hundred members, and of these 
 three hundred there were only seventy-two that were 
 elected by the people ; all the others were '* nomination 
 boroughs," as they were called. Certain great lords, 
 barons, and noblemen had three or four little towns on 
 their estates, which towns returned a Member of Parlia- 
 ment ; and the poor people who had the votes were at 
 the mercy of the landlord, who made the regular ^^ nomi- 
 nations," and put up whom he desired, and the peo- 
 ple were compelled to vote for him or suffer the con- 
 sequences. Just as, in the Protestant church, when- 
 
1 88 Lecture IV, 
 
 ever a bishop dies, the queen comes and writes to the 
 clergy and says : You .vill name such a one for bishop — 
 and then they elect him. Even the seventy-two who 
 were in some sense representatives of the people, 
 whom did they represent ? There were nearly threes- 
 millions of Irishmen in Ireland, men of intellect and 
 of education, in spite of all the laws that were made 
 against schools and colleges for Catholics ; there were 
 nearly three millions of Irish Catholics in the land, 
 and not a man of them had a vote even for a Member 
 of Parliament. And, therefore, this wretched parlia- 
 ment, that only represented one-tenth of the nation, 
 if it was venal and corrupt, is no disgrace to the Irish 
 people, and is no argument or imputation that they 
 did not know how to govern themselves. 
 
 Meantime, the Volunteers made the most tremen- 
 dous mistake, •and that was by letting Catholics in 
 amongst their ranks. Here I have my Lord Sheffield. 
 Here is what he says : — it will give you clearly to 
 understand, ladies and gentlemen of America, how the 
 English people looked upon us Irish one hundred 
 years ago ; indeed, according to Cobbett, one of their 
 most distinguished writers, this was how they looked 
 upon you, until you taught them with the sword 
 to look upon you with more respect : ^' It is 
 now necessary," says Lord Sheffield, *' to go back to 
 the year 1778, to take notice of a phenomenon which 
 began to appear at that time ; it is a wonderful 
 thing.*' What was it? *' The like has never been 
 seen in any country, at least where there was an 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers. 1 89 
 
 established government. To describe it : it is an 
 army unauthorized by the law, and unnatural ; and 
 generally known by the name of the Volunteers of 
 Ireland. The arms issued from the public stores 
 were insufficient to supply the rapid increase of the 
 Volunteers; the rest were procured by themselves, 
 and the necessary accoutrements, with a considerable 
 number of field-pieces. The Opposition in England 
 speak highly of them ; and the supporters of the gov- 
 ernment in both countries mention them with civility.'* 
 (It is not easy to be uncivil to an army of ninety-five 
 thousand men.) " The wonderful efforts of England in 
 America were, somehow or other, wasted to no pur- 
 pose." The wonderful efforts of England in America 
 were wasted to no purpose ! There happened to be a 
 man in the way, and that man was George Washington. 
 He goes on to speak of the Volunteers. The ** many- 
 headed monster,*' as he calls it, *^ now began to think it 
 would be proper to reform the State and to purge the 
 Parliament of Ireland." Henry Grattan said, *'I will 
 never claim freedom for six hundred thousand of my 
 countrymen while I leave two million or more of them 
 in chains. Give the Catholics of Ireland their civil 
 rights and their franchise ; give them the power to 
 return members to the Irish Parliament, and let the 
 nation be represented ; put an end to the rotten 
 nomination boroughs ; let the members represent the 
 people truly, and you will have reformed your Parlia- 
 ment, and you will have established for ever the lib- 
 erties which the Volunteers have won." 
 
190 Lecture IV, 
 
 This was what the Volunteers wanted ; and for this 
 they got, from my Lord Sheffield, the very genteel 
 name of ** the many-headed monster." But they did 
 something still more strange than this. '' So far," he 
 says, "• everything went on as might have been** 
 expected. But there is another part of their con- 
 duct neither natural nor rational. Some of the corps, 
 for the purpose of increasing their numbers, perhaps, or 
 possibly without consideration, admitted Roman Cath- 
 olics." (They must have been mad. They did it ^' with- 
 out consideration.") *' And others, perhaps, enrolled 
 them latterly for the sake of acquiring numbers and 
 strength to force a reform of the government from Eng- 
 land " — (to force a reform which the government of Eng- 
 land would never permit, because she wanted to have a 
 rotten parliament to her hand, and through that parlia- 
 ment to destroy the country.) '* Well, but that Protest- 
 ants should allow and encourage this also, and form a 
 whole corps of Roman Catholics, when all Europe was 
 at peace, is scarcely to be believed — above all, in view 
 of their number. It has become the system of the 
 Roman Catholics to enroll as many as possible, par- 
 ticularly since the peace of last summer ; and there is 
 nothing unequivocal in this. Already, perhaps five 
 thousand of these are in arms, and in a year or less 
 they may be ten thousand. All the Protestants are 
 gradually quitting the service ; and the only Protest- 
 ants are those who continue since the peace, in order 
 to prevent the Volunteer arms from falling into more 
 dangerous hands, and to counterbalance the Cath- 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers. 191 
 
 olics." Then he goes on to say: *'They are many. 
 If they were only one-fifth, instead of four-fiftlis, of 
 the people, the writer of this observation would be the 
 last man to suggest a difficulty about their being ad- 
 mitted into power, or every right or advantage given 
 to them. But they do not forget the situation in 
 which their ancestors have been. They are not blind 
 to what they might acquire. Persevering for upwards 
 of two centuries under every discouragement, under 
 every severity, subjected to every disadvantage, does 
 not prove an indifference to the principles of their re- 
 ligion. Thinking as they do, feeling as they do, be- 
 lieving as they do, they would not be men if they did 
 not wish for a change. Nor would Protestants be 
 worthy of the designation of reasonable creatures if 
 they did not take precautions to prevent it." 
 
 Thus, it is to this fact that the English Government 
 steadily opposed reform, that they would not hear 
 of reform — because they wanted to have a venal, cor- 
 rupt, miserable seventy-two in their hands, — it is to 
 this fact, and not to any mistake of Grattan, that we 
 owe the collapse of that magnificent revolutionary 
 movement of the '' Irish Volunteers." 
 
 Well, England now adopted another policy. We 
 have evidence of it. As soon as William Pitt came 
 into office as Premier, his first thought was — ^^ I will 
 put an end to this Irish difficulty? I will have no 
 more laws made in Ireland, for Irishmen. I will unite 
 the two parliaments into one, and will not leave Ire- 
 land a single shadow of legislative independence." 
 
192 Lecture IV, 
 
 This being the programme, how was it to be worked 
 out ? Mr. Froude says, or seems to say, that ^' the 
 Rebellion of '98 was one of those outbursts of Irish 
 ungovernable passion and of Irish inconstancy, accom- 
 panied by cowardice and by treachery, with which** 
 (according to him) *^ we are all so familiar in the his- . 
 tory of Ireland." Now, I have a different account of 
 '98. Mr. Froude says that ** the rebellion arose out 
 of the disturbance of men*s minds created by the 
 French Revolution ; '* and, ind*eed, there is a great 
 deal of truth in this. The French Revolution set all 
 the world in a blaze, and the flame spread, no doubt, 
 to Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Froude goes on to say that ** the Irish Govern- 
 ment were so hampered by this free parliament, this 
 parliament of Grattan's, that although they saw the 
 danger approaching, they could not avert it: — their 
 hands were bound ; nay, more," he adds, *' the gov- 
 ernment, bound by constitutional law, and by parlia- 
 ment, could not touch one of the United Irishmen un- 
 til they had first committed themselves by some overt 
 act of treason ; in other words, until they had first risen." 
 
 Now, according to this historian, there was nothing 
 done to molest, slay, or persecute the people of Ireland 
 until they rose in arms in '98, My friends, the rising 
 of 1798 took place on the 23d of May. On that day 
 the ^^ United Irishmen" rose. I ask you now to con- 
 sider whether the government had any share in that 
 rising, or in creating that rebellion ? 
 
 As early as 1797, the country was beginning to be 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers, 193 
 
 disturbed, according to Mr. Froude ; and, during the 
 first three months of January, February, and March, 
 in '98, we find Lord Moira giving his testimony as to 
 the action of the English Government. " My Lords," 
 he says, in the House of Lords, *^ I have seen in Ire- 
 land the most absurd, as well as the most disgusting 
 tyranny, that any nation ever groaned under. I have 
 been myself a witness of it in many instances ; I have 
 seen it practiced unchecked, and the effects that have 
 resulted from it have been such as I have stated to 
 your lordships. I have seen in that country a marked 
 distinction between the English and the Irish. I have 
 seen troops that have been sent there full of this pre- 
 judice — that every inhabitant of that kingdom is a reb- 
 el to the British Government." Troops were sent there 
 before the rebellion, and told — " every man you meet 
 is a rebel." ^' I have seen most wanton insults prac- 
 ticed upon men of all ranks and conditions." 
 
 They sent their thousands into Ireland in prepara- 
 tion for the rebellion ; they had, between Welsh and 
 Scotch and Hessian regiments, and between English 
 and Irish militia, an army of one hundred and thirty 
 thousand men prepared for the work ; and in this way 
 they goaded the people on to rebellion. The rack, in- 
 deed, was not at hand, but the punishment of '' picket- 
 ing " was in practice, which had been for some years 
 abolished as too inhuman even for the treatment of 
 savages. 
 
 Lord Moira goes on to say that he had known of a 
 man who, in order to extort confession of a crime 
 
 9 
 
194 Lecture IV. 
 
 from him, was '* picketed '* until he actually fainted 
 (** picketing *' meant putting them on the point of a 
 stake upon one foot), *^ and picketed a second time un- 
 til hf fainted again ; and again, as soon as he came to 
 himself, picketed the third time until he fainted once *• 
 more, and all this on mere suspicion/* 
 
 Not only was this punishment used, but every spe- 
 cies of torture. Men were taken and hung up until 
 they were half dead, and then threatened with a repe- 
 tition of the cruel torture unless they made confession 
 of imputed guilt. They sent their soldiers into the 
 country, and quartered them at what was called " free 
 quarters/* The English yeomanry and the Orange 
 yeomanry of Ireland lived upon the people ; they vio- 
 lated the women, they killed the aged, they plundered 
 the houses, they set fire to the villages, they exercised 
 every form of torture the most terrible — this terrible 
 soldiery. All this took place before a single rising in 
 Ireland, before the rebellion of '98 sprung up at all. 
 We had a brave and gallant man sent to Ireland at 
 that time — Sir Ralph Abercrombie ; and he declared 
 he was so frightened and disgusted at the conduct of 
 the soldiers that he threw up his commission, and re- 
 fused to take the command of the forces in Ireland. 
 He issued a general order in February, ^98 — the rebel- 
 lion did not begin until May — he began his general 
 order with these words : *^ The very disgraceful fre- 
 quency of great cruelties and crimes, and the many 
 complaints of the conduct of the troops in this kingdom, 
 has too unfortunately proved the army to be in a state 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers. 195 
 
 of licentiousness that renders it formidable to every- 
 one, except the enemy.** Then he threw up his commis- 
 sion in disgust ; and General Lake was sent to command 
 in Ireland. He says : " The state of the country and 
 its occupation previous to the insurrection, is not to be 
 imagined, except by those who witnessed the atrocities 
 of every description committed by the military and the 
 Orangemen, that were let loose upon the unfortunate 
 and defenseless population." Then he gives a long 
 list of terrible hangings, burnings, and murderings. We 
 read that *'at Dunlavin, in the county of Wicklow," 
 previous to the rising, "• thirty-four men were shot with- 
 out any trial." But it is useless to enumerate or con- 
 tinue the list of cruelties perpetrated. It will suffice 
 to say that where the military were placed on free 
 quarters all kinds of crimes were committed ; but the 
 people were no worse off than those living where no 
 soldiers were quartered ; for in the latter places the in- 
 habitants were called to their doors and shot without 
 ceremony, and every house was plundered or burned. 
 Nay, more ! We have Mr. Emmet, in his examination, 
 giving his evidence, and declaring that it was the fault 
 of the government, this Rebellion of ^qS. The Lord 
 Chancellor put the following question to Mr. Emmet : 
 " Pray, Mr. Emmet," — this was in August, '98 — ** what 
 caused the late insurrection?" to which Mr. Emmet 
 replied, *' Free quarters, house-burnings, tortures, and 
 all the military executions in the counties of Kildare, 
 Carlow, and Wicklow." Before the insurrection broke 
 out, numbers of houses, with their furniture, in 
 
196 Lecture IV. 
 
 which concealed arms had been found, were demolished. 
 Numbers of people v/ere daily scourged, picketed, 
 and otherwise put to death, to force confession of con- 
 cealed crime or plots. Outrageous acts of severity were 
 often committed, even by persons not in the regular •• 
 troops. And we have the evidence of the brave Sir John 
 Moore, the hero of Corunna. He was in Ireland at the 
 time, in military command, and he bears this testimony. 
 Speaking of Wicklow, the very hotbed of the insurrec- 
 tion, he says, that ** moderate treatment by the gene- 
 rals, and the preventing of the troops from pillaging 
 and molesting the people, would soon restore tranquil- 
 lity ; the latter would certainly be quiet if the yeomanry 
 would behave with tolerable decency, and not seek 
 to gratify their ill-humor and revenge upon the poor." 
 
 We have the testimony of Sir William Napier, not 
 an Irishman, but a brave English soldier, saying, '' What 
 manner of soldiers were these fellows who were let 
 loose upon the wretched districts in which the Ascend- 
 ency were placed, killing, burning, and confiscating 
 every man's property ; and, to use the venerable Aber- 
 crombie's words, * they were formidable to everybody 
 but the enemy.' We ourselves were young at the 
 time ; yet, being connected with the army, we were 
 continually among the soldiers, listening with boyish 
 eagerness to their experiences : and well we remember, 
 with horror, to this day, the tales of lust, of bloodshed, 
 and pillage, and the recital of their foul actions against 
 the miserable peasantry, which they used to relate." 
 
 I ask you, in all this goading of the people into re- 
 
Grattan and the Volunteers. 197 
 
 belHon, who was accountable if not the infamous gov- 
 ernment which, at the time, ruled the destinies of Ire- 
 land ? I ask you, are the Irish people accountable, 
 if from time to time the myrmidons of England have 
 been let loose upon them, ravaging them like tigers, 
 violating every instinct of Irish love of land, of Irish 
 purity, of Irish faith ? Is it not a terrible thing that, 
 after all these provocations, which they deliberately 
 put before the people, in order to goad them into the 
 rebellion of '98, and so prepare the way for that union 
 of 1800 which followed that, Mr. Froude says: 
 " Several hot-headed priests put themselves at the 
 head of their people." There was a Father John 
 Murphy in the county of Wexford. He came home 
 from his duties one day, to find the houses of the poor 
 people around sacked and burned ; to find his unfor- 
 tunate parishioners huddled about the blackened walls 
 of the chapel, crying : ^* Soggarth dear, what are we to 
 do ? where are we to fly from this terrible persecution 
 that has come upon us ? " And Father John Murphy 
 got the pikes, put them in their hands, and put himself 
 at their head ! So you see, my friends, there are two 
 sides to every story. 
 
 My friends, I have endeavored to give you some 
 portions of the Irish side of the story, basing my testi- 
 mony upon the records of Protestant and English 
 writers, and upon the testimony which I have been so 
 proud to put before you, of noble, generous, American 
 gentlemen. I have to apologize for the dryness of the 
 subject, and the imperfect manner in which I have 
 
198 Lecture IV. 
 
 treated it, and also for the unconscionable length of 
 time in which I have tried your patience. On next 
 Tuesday evening we shall be approaching ticklish 
 ground : — " Ireland since the Union ;** Ireland as she 
 is to-day ; and Ireland, as my heart and brain tell me 
 she shall be in some future day. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 IRELAND SINCE THE 
 UNION. 
 
 Mr. Froude Opens his fifth and last lecture by- 
 stating that the Irish left the paths of practical reform, 
 and clamored for political agitation. Now, I am quite 
 as much opposed to political agitation as Mr. Froude. 
 I regard it as an evil, distracting men's minds from the 
 more important and necessary duties of life, withdraw- 
 ing their attention from business, and the sober pur- 
 suit of industry, creating animosities and bad blood 
 between citizens, affording an easy and profitable em- 
 ployment to many a worthless demagogue, and frequent- 
 ly (in fact, in most cases) bringing to the surface the 
 worst and meanest elements of society. But we must 
 not forget that political agitation, with all these draw- 
 backs, is the only resource of a people who endeavor 
 to obtain just laws from an unwilling government. 
 What were the struggles of the seventeenth century 
 in France, Germany, and the Low Countries, with 
 which Mr. Froude sympathises so deeply, but politi- 
 
200 Lecture V. 
 
 cal agitation, deepening into the form of armed revolt, 
 in order to extort from the various governments just 
 measures of toleration and liberty of conscience. For 
 these and such as these, Mr. Froude has words of ad- 
 miration and sympathy, although the people in arms 
 were really innovators, seeking to destroy a state of 
 things established for ages; but for the Irish, merely 
 standing on the defensive against an innovating and 
 revolutionary government, and seeking to preserve, 
 not freedom, for that was already gone, but land, life, 
 conscience, and their ancient creed, this learned gen- 
 tleman has no words but reproof, condemnation, and 
 disdain. In 1780 the Irish people, mostly the Protest- 
 ant portion of them, labored for the repeal of certain 
 laws, restricting and annihilating the trade and indus- 
 try of the people. Was England willing to grant this 
 measure of justice? Was she only anxious, as Mr. 
 Froude says, to remedy every evil as soon as it was 
 pointed out ? I ansAver No, and my proof lies here ; 
 that free trade, as it was called, was extorted and 
 forced from the government by the presence of fifty 
 thousand armed Volunteers, who planted their cannon 
 in the streets of Dublin and attached to each gun the 
 significant label " Free Trade or " If every meas- 
 ure of just legislation was only to be obtained by such 
 means as these, the country would of necessity be kept 
 in a state of perpetual revolution. What wonder, then, 
 that the Irish thought with Henry Grattan, that it 
 would be better to have their own parliament, free and 
 independent of that of England, to legislate for the 
 
Ireland since the Union, 201 
 
 wants and interests of their own country. Thus we 
 see that the action of 1782 was the result, not of the 
 love of the Irish people for political agitation, but of 
 Ireland's well-founded conviction that she never could 
 expect or obtain just and salutary legislation except 
 from her own parliament, free and independent. It is 
 true that this independent Irish parliament failed to 
 realize the hopes of the Irish nation, and Mr. Froude 
 accounts for it by saying that the Irish are incapable of 
 home legislation. I say that the cause of this failure lay 
 in the fact that the parliament of eighty-two did not 
 represent the nation at all. Nearly three millions of 
 Irishmen, the vast majority of the people, were unrep- 
 resented. They had not even a vote for a single mem- 
 ber of that parliament, which represented about half 
 a million of Protestant strangers, English and Scotch, 
 who had recently settled in Ireland. But even these 
 men were not fairly represented, as the constitution of 
 the parliament will prove. The House of Commons 
 was made up of three hundred members. Of these 
 only seventy-two were elected by the people. The 
 rest represented rotten or nomination boroughs, and 
 were the mere nominees, and consequently the agents, 
 of certain great lords and extensive landed proprietors. 
 Had the nation been represented they would have 
 solved the problem of home rule in favor of Ireland, 
 despite the corruption which must always be found in 
 large assemblies. The Irish people knew this, and 
 loudly proclaimed that the parliament should be re- 
 formed on the basis of a truly national representation ; 
 
202 Lecture V. 
 
 the volunteers cried out for reform, and at their first 
 meeting at Dungannon they decided, to their honor, 
 that every Irishman had a right to be represented. 
 The United Irishmen, who in the beginning were not 
 a secret society, laid down as their fundamental prin- 
 ciples the three following resolutions : 1st, That the 
 weight of English influence in the government of 
 this country is so great as to require a cordial union 
 among all the people of Ireland, to maintain that bal- 
 ance which is essential to the preservation of our liber- 
 ties, and the extension of our commerce. 2d, That 
 the sole constitutional mode by which this influence 
 can be opposed, is by a complete and radical reform of 
 the representation of the people in parliament. 3d, That 
 no reform is just which does not include every Irish- 
 man of every religious persuasion. Who opposed and 
 hindered the reform which would have made the Irish 
 parliament a truly representative body instead of the 
 hideous sham of a corrupt party clique, as it was ? I 
 answer, the government of England. On the 29th of 
 November, 1783, Mr. Flood introduced into the Irish 
 Parliament a bill of reform. Who led the opposition 
 to it ? Mr. Yelverton, the Attorney-General of the gov- 
 ernment, gave the idea of a reform of parliament aii 
 official opposition. The vote was secured by corrupting 
 the venal members, and the bill was thrown out by a di- 
 vision of one hundred and fifty to seventy-seven. The 
 Attorney-General then moved ** That it had now be- 
 come necessary to declare that the House would main- 
 tain its just rights and privileges against all encroach- 
 
Ireland since the Union, 203 
 
 ments whatsoever.** Their just rights and privileges 
 being to represent a faction, and to exclude from all rep- 
 resentation five-sixths of the people of Ireland. *^ From 
 agitation grew conspiracy/' says Mr. Froude, ^' and from 
 conspiracy rebellion." In these words the historian al- 
 ludes to the Society of United Irishmen, out of which 
 grew the Rebellion of '98. I have shown, on the evi- 
 dence of such men as Sir Ralph Abercrombie and Sir 
 John Moore, that the rebellion of '98 was mainly the work 
 of the English Government. We have also seen that 
 the United Irishmen were, in the beginning, far from 
 being a secret society or conspiracy. But the principle 
 on which they were founded, was ^^ Union amongst all 
 Irishmen," and this was enough to alarm the govern- 
 ment, whose policy it has ever been to rule Ireland 
 through the divisions amongst her people. England's 
 Premier, therefore, Wm. Pitt, resolved to disarm the 
 Volunteers (who were doomed from the moment they 
 fraternized with the Catholics, and admitted them into 
 their ranks), to force the United Irishmen to become a 
 secret conspiracy, and to bring on, through them, a re- 
 bellion in Ireland. The first of these designs he ac- 
 complished by raising the standing army to fifteen 
 thousand men, in 1785, and by obtaining a grant of 
 ;£"20,ooo to clothe and organize the militia. The second 
 was achieved in 1793, by the passing of the gunpow- 
 der and convention bills. A public meeting of United 
 Irishmen was held in Dublin in February, 1793, to pro- 
 test against the inquisitorial and tyrannical nature of 
 certain proceedings of the secret committee of the 
 
204 Lecture V. 
 
 House of Lords. For this the Honorable Mr. Butler, 
 who presided at the meeting, and Mr. Oliver Bond, 
 who acted as secretary, were imprisoned for six months 
 and fined ;^500 each. The Society of United Irishmen, 
 thus persecuted, took refuge in secrecy and became a 
 conspiracy. It was still, however, watched and fo- 
 mented by government. The first really treasonable 
 project was proposed to it in April, 1794, by the Rev. 
 Wm. Jackson, a Protestant clergyman and an agent 
 from the French Convention, and he was accompanied 
 by a London lawyer named John Cockayne, an agent of 
 Wm. Pitt, the Premier of England. Thus did the 
 Society of United Irishmen become a secret and treason- 
 able conspiracy. Their first organization was perfectly 
 open, legitimate, and loyal, but their object was union 
 amongst Irishmen, and this did not answer the purposes 
 of the English Government, so they must be got rid of. 
 The only way to do this was to goad them into con- 
 spiracy by persecution, and from conspiracy to rebel- 
 lion, which could be suppressed, and so lay the country 
 once more prostrate at the feet of the minister. The 
 test of the United Irishmen reveals nothing treasonable. 
 It was as follows : *' I, A. B., in the presence of God, 
 do pledge myself to my country, that I will use all my 
 abilities and influence in the attainment of an impartial 
 and adequate representation of the Irish nation in par- 
 liament ; and as a means of absolute and immediate 
 necessity in the establishment of this chief good of Ire- 
 land, I will endeavor, as much as lies in my ability, to 
 forward a brotherhood of affection and identity of inter- 
 
Ireland since the Union, 205 
 
 ests, a communion of rights, and an union of power 
 among Irishmen of all religious persuasions, without 
 which every reform in parliament must be partial, not 
 national, inadequate to the wants, delusive to the 
 wishes, and insufficient for the freedom and happiness 
 of this country." That Wolfe Tone was imbued with 
 republican and revolutionary ideas I do not deny, but 
 he never attempted to impress these on the society, 
 nor did they ever find way into its councils, until the 
 English Government forced it to become a conspiracy. 
 The third object of the Premier and the government, 
 namely, to create an Irish rebellion, was accomplished 
 by the cruelty and abominations of the soldiery quar- 
 tered on the people — cruelties which made death itself 
 preferable to life, as we have seen in the last lecture. 
 So much for Mr. Froude's assertions that " The Irish 
 left the paths of practical reform, and clamored for po- 
 litical agitation. From agitation grew conspiracy, and 
 from conspiracy rebellion." 
 
 It may be asked what motive could the English Pre- 
 mier have in adopting so tortuous a policy. I answer, 
 he had resolved on the legislative Union of England 
 and Ireland by the destruction of the Irish Parliament, 
 and he knew that it was through the humiliation and 
 misfortune, not through the happiness and prosperity 
 of Ireland, that such a measure could be brought about. 
 ** To realize his favorite project," says an Irish histo- 
 rian, ** the unhappy country was to be deluged with 
 crime and blood." And yet how easy it was to gov- 
 ern Ireland, and to conciliate the affections of her peo- 
 
2o6 Lecture V. 
 
 pie, Pitt himself had a striking proof of at this very- 
 time. In 1795, the Piemier seemed to abandon for a 
 time his theory of governing Ireland by coercion and 
 terror. The Earl of Westmoreland was recalled from 
 Ireland and Earl Fitzwilliam arrived to replace him, on 
 the 4th of January, 1795. 
 
 Lord Fitzwilliam was a man of liberal principles and 
 most estimable disposition. He came to Ireland on 
 the express understanding that he was to be at 
 liberty to pursue a policy of conciliation and kindness. 
 He found at Dublin Castle, Secretary Cook and the 
 Beresfords, who had monopolized for years all the 
 public offices and emoluments, and had uncontrolled 
 sway over the Irish Government. He dismissed them 
 all and surrounded himself with liberal-minded 
 men. The Catholics were promised emancipation, the 
 people, were inspired with a confidence which they 
 never felt before, universal joy spread through the 
 nation, and every idea of disaffection or rebellion 
 seemed at once to vanish from the public mind. In 
 an evil hour Pitt resumed his old ideas, and on the 
 25th of March, after a term of little more than two 
 months. Earl Fitzwilliam was recalled. The effect 
 was heartrending. Addresses and resolutions poured 
 in from all sides to avert the calamity, but to no pur- 
 pose. Fitzwilliam left amidst the anguish of the 
 people, who were exasperated at Pitt's duplicity. The 
 earFs coach was drawn to the waterside by some of 
 the leading citizens of Dublin, and the city, as well as 
 the nation, wore an aspect of mourning. The fact 
 
Ireland since the Union, 207 
 
 was, Pitt had made up his mind to carry the union. 
 The rebellion broke out and was defeated, and truly, 
 as Mr. Froude remarks, *^ the victors took away old 
 privileges and made the yoke heavier." The ** old 
 privilege *' in question was the Irish Parliament. 
 I believe that America, to which Mr. Froude makes 
 appeal, looks upon home legislation as the rights 
 not the privilege, of a people. Looking back to 
 strengthen his argument, the learned gentleman stated 
 that the penal laws of Elizabeth were the effect and 
 result of the revolutionary war of 1600, by which I pre- 
 sume he means the war of Hugh O'Neill, in Ulster. 
 Now, history records that the penal laws began to 
 operate in Ireland as early as 1534, under Henry VIII. 
 In 1537, Cromer, the Primate, was cast into prison for 
 denying the royal supremacy. Passing over the suc- 
 ceeding penalties enacted by Henry and by Edward 
 VI., we come to the parliament convoked by Elizabeth 
 in 1560. In that famous assembly, ''AH officers and 
 ministers, ecclesiastic or lay, were bound to take the 
 oath of supremacy under pain of forfeiture and total 
 incapacity ; and any one who maintained the spiritual 
 supremacy of the Pope was to forfeit, for the first of- 
 fence, all his estates, real and personal, or to be im- 
 prisoned for one year, if not worth ;£"20 ; for the sec- 
 ond offence to be liable to praemunire, and for the third 
 to be guilty of high treason." These laws were made, 
 and commissioners were appointed to enforce them, 
 full forty years before the revolution to which Mr. 
 Froude alludes as the revolution of 1600. How then 
 
2o8 Lecture V. 
 
 can that gentleman ask us to regard the penal laws as 
 the effects of that revolution ? Moreover, does he not 
 himself tell us that Elizabeth was forced into the 
 enactment of penal laws by the political necessities 
 of her situation ? He excuses her cruelties by plead-*' 
 ing that she could not help herself. If Ireland 
 was permitted to remain Catholic, Ireland would be 
 hostile to her, and the natural and necessary ally of her 
 enemies, therefore Ireland's Catholicity was to be de- 
 stroyed in order to preserve the integrity of her em- 
 pire. The only way to effect this was by penal laws 
 making it felony to be a Catholic in Ireland ; and so 
 Elizabeth, on the principle of self-preservation, was 
 constrained to make these laws. This is Mr. Froude's 
 own argument, put forth in his second lecture ; yet, in 
 his fifth and last lecture he turns round and tells us 
 that these penal laws were the consequence of a revo- 
 lution which took place nearly forty years after they 
 were enacted. I would advise the learned gentleman, 
 seeing the manner in which he treats history, to sacrifice 
 to Mercury for the gift of a better memory. 
 
 ** The laws against Catholics were almost repealed 
 before 1798.'* This is the next assertion of Mr. 
 Froude. Now, I beg my reader to consider what 
 these large measures of indulgence were. In 1771, 
 parliament passed an act to enable a Catholic to take 
 a long lease of fifty acres of bog, to which, if the bog 
 were too deep for a foundation, half an acre of arable 
 land might be added for a house ; but this holding 
 should not be within a mile of any city or town ; and 
 
Ireland since the Union, 209 
 
 if half the bog were not reclaimed within twenty-one 
 years, the lease was forfeited. Beggarly as this con- 
 cession was, it was found necessary in order to con- 
 ciliate the furious Protestant faction, to counterbalance 
 it by an act adding ;^io a year to the pension of £10 
 offered to any " Popish priest duly converted to the 
 Protestant religion.'* In October, 1777, the news 
 reached England that Gen. Burgoyne had surrendered 
 to the American Gen. Gates, and Lord North imme- 
 diately expressed an ardent desire to relax the penal 
 laws. In January, 1778, the independence of the 
 United States was acknowledged by France, and im- 
 mediately the English Parliament passed a bill for the 
 relief of the Roman Catholics. In the May of the 
 same year, the Irish Parliament passed a bill enabling 
 the Catholics to lease land for 999 years, repealing the 
 unnatural law which altered the succession in favor of 
 a child embracing Protestantism, and also the law for 
 the prosecution of priests and for the imprisonment of 
 Catholic schoolmasters. This, together with the act 
 of 1793, restoring the franchise to Catholics, and en- 
 abling them to hold certain commissions in the army, 
 was positively all that was granted, and this Mr. 
 Froude has the hardihood to call an almost total 
 repeal of the acts against Catholics. 
 
 ''The insurrection of '98,'' continues the learned 
 gentleman, '' threw Ireland back into a condition of 
 confusion and misery from which she was partially 
 delivered by the act of union." The first part of this 
 proposition I admit, the second I emphatically deny. 
 
2vio Lecture V, 
 
 I freely admit that Ireland was flung into a state of 
 confusion and misery by the movement of '98. An 
 unsuccessful rebellion is one of the greatest calamities 
 that can befall a people, and the sooner Irish patriots 
 understand this the better will it be for them and for 
 their country. But I must deny that the act of union 
 was even a partial deliverance from that misery, or a 
 benefit or blessing of any kind for Ireland. It was a 
 curse, and nothing more nor less ; an evil which must 
 be remedied if the wrongs and miseries of Ireland are 
 ever to be redressed. I need not dwell on the whole- 
 sale corruption and other execrable means by which 
 the political apostate Castlereagh carried the vile 
 measure. Mr. Froude has the good sense not to 
 meddle with the dirty subject, and I can do no better 
 than to imitate him in this. *' It was expected,** he 
 says, *^that whatsoever grievances Ireland complained 
 of would be removed by legislation." Quite true. The 
 nation was bribed by promises of justice, as the politi- 
 cians were bribed by money and titles. Amongst other 
 things. Catholic Emancipation was promised as a bribe 
 for the surrender of the native parliament. But when 
 the wicked act was consummated, the Irish were left to 
 
 " Mourn the hopes that left them," 
 
 and to meditate in bitterness of spirit on the nature 
 of English faith. '' But," adds Mr. Froude, '' they had 
 no foundation for their complaints. They were not 
 treated unjustly." Good God. What is this gentle- 
 man's idea of justice? What did Ireland gain, what 
 did she lose, by the act of union ? Her gain is noth- 
 
Ireland since the Union, 2 1 1 
 
 ing — absolutely nothing. Let us examine her loss. 
 The national debt of Ireland was distinct from that 
 of England up to the year 1817. In 1797, just before 
 the insurrection, the national debt of Ireland was less 
 than four millions sterling. Three years later that debt 
 was found to be ^^26,841, 2 19. If you ask me the rea- 
 son of the enormous increase, I answer : first, England 
 had for her own purposes in Ireland at the time of the 
 union 126,500 men. She made Ireland pay for every man 
 of them. In order to carry the union, England spent 
 enormous sums in bribes to spies, informers, and Mem- 
 bers of Parliament. She took every penny of this 
 money out of the Irish treasury. There were eighty- 
 four rotten boroughs disfranchised, and to compensate 
 those who lost the nomination to these boroughs, that 
 is to say, who lost the bribery money and corrupt in- 
 fluence which the representation of these boroughs 
 brought them, Castlereagh gave a sum of ;^i, 200,000. 
 Ireland was made to pay this money by which Eng- 
 land purchased the union. ^' It was strange," says 
 O'Connell, "• that Ireland was not made to pay for the 
 knife with which, twenty-two years later, Castlereagh 
 cut his throat." But if Ireland's debt was run up from 
 less than four millions to nearly twenty-seven millions 
 in so short a time, mark what follows. In January, 
 1 801, the debt of Great Britain was ;^4So, 504,984, the 
 annual charge for which was ;^i7,7i8,85i. In 1817, 
 the same debt was ;^734,522,i04, the annual charge 
 being ^28,238,416. Thus we see that the debt of Eng- 
 land was not quite doubled during these years of most 
 
212 Lecture V, 
 
 expensive war. Now, come to Ireland for the same 
 time. In 1801, the Irish debt was ;^28,545,I34, at an 
 annual charge of ^1,244,463. In 1817, the same Irish 
 debt was ;^i 12,704,773, at an annual charge of 
 ;^4,i04,5i4. Now reflect upon these figures. Irelancf' 
 was so lightly burthened with debt at the time of the 
 union, as compared with England, that the English 
 did not presume to ask us to bear an equal taxation 
 with themselves. They were rich and could bear it. 
 We were poor and could not. Before the union Eng- 
 land had an enormous debt of ;^45 0,000,000. Ireland, 
 a comparatively trifling debt of ^26,000,000. Ireland 
 was consequently much more lightly taxed than Eng- 
 land, as it is much easier to pay interest on £26 than 
 on ^450. It was, however, agreed that in case the 
 debt of Ireland ever arrived at one-seventh of that of 
 England, then Ireland should be subject to indiscrimin- 
 ate taxation with Great Britain. An English Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer took charge of Ireland's accounts, 
 for the keeping our own books was lost to us by the 
 union : ** The debt of England went on increasing 
 rapidly,'* says Mr. Mitchel, ** owing to the war and sub- 
 sidies to all enemies of France, the debt of Ireland was 
 somehow found to increase more than twice as fast as 
 that of England — as if Ireland had a double interest 
 in crushing France." In a word, while the Imperial 
 Parliament at Westminster less than doubled the debt 
 of England, they managed to increase Ireland's debt 
 four-fold in sixteen years, and so made the Irish peo- 
 ple liable to be taxed for the enormous debt which 
 
Ireland since the Union, 2 1 3 
 
 England had contracted even before the union. And 
 yet Mr. Froude audaciously says, ^' the people were not 
 treated unjustly.*' Mr. Froude lays stress on the benefit 
 which the union conferred on Ireland by giving her 
 the same commercial privileges enjoyed by England. 
 ^^ True, the laws regulating trade are the same in the 
 two islands," says Mr. Mitchel. *^ Ireland may export 
 even woollen cloth to England ; she may import, in 
 her own ships, tea from China, and sugar from Barba- 
 does ; the laws which made those acts penal offences 
 no longer exist ; they are no longer needed ; England 
 is fully in possession ; and by the operation of those 
 old laws, Ireland was utterly ruined. England has the 
 commercial marine ; Ireland has it to create. Eng- 
 land has the manufacturing skill and machinery, of 
 which Ireland was deprived by express laws for that 
 purpose. England has the current of trade established, 
 setting strongly in her own channel ; while Ireland is 
 left dry." '^ To create, or recover at this day, these 
 great industrial and commercial resources, and that in 
 the face of wealthy rivals already in full possession, is 
 manifestly impossible, without one or other of these 
 two conditions, either immense command of capital, 
 or effectual protective duties. But by the union our 
 capital is drained away to England ; and by the union 
 we are deprived of the power of imposing protective 
 duties. It was to this very end that the union was 
 forced upon Ireland, through ^ intolerance of Irish 
 prosperity.'"' *^Do not unite with us, sir," said Dr. 
 Johnson; ^' we shall rob you'' In the first year after 
 
214 Lecture V, 
 
 the union, in 1801, Mr. Foster stated in parliament a 
 falling off \xi exported linens of five million yards. 
 The same gentleman, three years later, stated that, in 
 1800, the net produce of the Irish revenue was 
 ;^2, 800,000, whilst the debt was only ;£'2 5, 000,000 ;*• 
 whereas, three years later, the debt was ;^5 3,000,000, 
 more than doubled, whilst the revenue was ;£"2, 789,000, 
 a falling off of ;£"! 1,000 \w the. income, to meet a debt 
 more than doubled. 
 
 Absenteeism was vastly increased by the union. 
 Dublin was no longer a metropolis. Fashion, wealth, 
 political interest, intellectual activity, all were trans- 
 ferred to London. At this day, the Duke of Leinster's 
 palace is changed into a museum ; Powerscourt House 
 is a warehouse for drapers ; Tyrone House is a school- 
 house ; Bective House has given place to a Presbyterian 
 meeting-house ; Charlemont House is the head office 
 of the Board of Works ; Aldborough House a barrack : 
 Belvidere House a convent. This, and far worse than 
 this, was the state to which the union brought Ireland. 
 The crumbling liberties of Dublin attest the ruin of her 
 trade ; the forsaken harbors of Limerick and Galway tell 
 the destruction of her commerce; the palaces in Dublin 
 abandoned to decay, announce that she has no longer 
 a resident nobility ; and the forlorn custom-houses tell 
 that her income is transferred elsewhere. The Catho- 
 lics were told that their emancipation would be one 
 of the results of the union, and, upon this understand- 
 ing, plainly enough given by my Lord Cornwallis, 
 some of the bishops gave a tacit and neutral kind of 
 
Ireland since the Union, 215 
 
 consent to the measure. The word of the govern- 
 ment was pledged. Pitt's honor was at stake. He 
 had pledged himself through his Lord Lieutenant 
 Cornwallis ** not to embark in the service of govern- 
 ment, except on the terms of the Catholic privileges 
 being obtained." Pitt retired on pretence that the 
 king's obstinacy prevented him from keeping his word. 
 But it is well known that the reason why Pitt re- 
 tired was, that his continental policy had failed ; that 
 the people of England were tired of his wars, and that 
 they were clamoring for peace. He was too proud a 
 man to sign even a temporary peace with France, and 
 so he retired in sullen pride and disgust, and he put 
 his retirement on the easy pretence that he could 
 not be allowed to carry out Catholic emancipation. 
 Some time after the Addington administration was 
 broken up, Mr. Pitt returned again to the Pre- 
 miership of England ; and the second time not one 
 word escaped his lips about Catholic Emancipation, a 
 thing he resisted to the day of his death. He was as 
 great an enemy of the Catholics of Ireland, as ever 
 poor old, foolish, mad George HL was, and it was 
 only after twenty-nine years of marked effort that the 
 great O'Connell rallied the Irish nation ; that he succeed- 
 ed after a time in uniting all the Catholics of Ireland 
 as one man, and a great number of her noble-hearted 
 Protestant fellow-Irishmen. When O'Connell came 
 knocking at the doors of the British Parliament with the 
 hands of the united Irish people ; when he spoke with 
 the voice of eight millions, only then, even as the walls 
 
2i6 LecUire V. 
 
 of Jericho crumbled to the sound of Joshua^s trumpet, 
 did the old, bigoted British House of Commons trem- 
 ble, and did the doors open to the gigantic Irishman 
 that represented them. 
 
 The English historian cannot say that England** 
 granted Catholic Emancipation willingly. She granted 
 it as a man would yield up a bad tooth to a dentist. 
 O'Connell put the forceps into that false old mouth. 
 The old tyrant wriggled and groaned. The bigoted 
 profligate who then disgraced the English crown shed 
 his crocodile tears upon the bill ; the eyes which were 
 never known to weep over the ruin of female virtue ; 
 the face that was never known to change color in the 
 presence of any foul deed or accusation of vice — that 
 face grew pale, and George IV. wept for sorrow when 
 he had to sign the Catholic Emancipation Bill. The 
 man who had conquered Napoleon upon the field of 
 Waterloo — the man who was declared to be the in- 
 vincible victor of the greatest of warriors — stood there 
 with that bill in his hand, and he said to the King of 
 England, ^' I would not grant, your Majesty, any more 
 than you ; but it is forced upon you and me. You 
 must sign that paper or prepare for civil war and re- 
 bellion in Ireland." 
 
 I regret to be obliged to say it, my friends, but real- 
 ly, the history of my native land proves to me that 
 England never granted anything to Ireland from a 
 sense of justice, or from any other motive than the 
 craven fear of civil war or some serious inconvenience 
 to herself. 
 
Ireland since the Union, 217 
 
 Now, having arrived at this point, Mr. Froude glan- 
 ces, I must say, in a magnificent, manly manner over 
 the great questions that have affected Ireland since 
 the day that emancipation was passed. He speaks 
 words of the most eloquent compassion over the ter- 
 rible visitation of 1846 and 1847 — words, the reading 
 of which brought tears to my eyes — and for those 
 words of compassion he gave to the people whose 
 sufferings I witnessed, I pray to God to bless him and 
 reward him. He speaks words of generous and en- 
 lightened statesmanship and sympathy with the tenant 
 farmers and peasants of Ireland, and for those words, 
 Mr. Froude, if you were an Englishman ten thousand 
 times over, I love you. 
 
 He does not attempt to speak of the future of Ire- 
 land. Perhaps it is a dangerous thing for me. Yet, I 
 suppose all that we have been discussing in the past 
 must have some reference to the future, for surely the 
 verdict that Mr. Froude looks for is not the mere ver- 
 dict of absolution for past iniquities. He has come 
 here, though not a Catholic, like a man going to con- 
 fession. He has cried out loudly and generously, 
 *' We have sinned ! we have sinned ! we have griev- 
 ously sinned !'* The verdict which he calls for must 
 surely regard the future more than the past, for how, 
 in the name of common sense, how, in the name of 
 justice and history, can any man ask for a verdict 
 justifying the roll of iniquities, the heart-rending 
 record of cruelty, injustice, bloodshed, and ruin, which 
 we have been contemplating in common with Mr. 
 
2l8 Lecture V, 
 
 Froude. It must be for the future. What is that 
 future to be? 
 
 Well, my friends, and first of all, my American grand 
 jury, you must remember that I am only a monk, I 
 am not a man of the world, and I do not understand 
 much about these things. There are wiser men than 
 myself, and I will give you their opinions. 
 
 There is one class of men who love Ireland (and I am 
 only speaking the opinion of men who love Ireland, and 
 who love her sincerely), there is one class of men who in 
 their love for Ireland think that the future of their coun- 
 try is to be wrought out by insurrection, by rising in arms 
 against the power which holds Ireland enslaved, if you 
 will. Well, if the history which Mr. Froude has just been 
 telling, and which I have just endeavored to review, 
 teaches anything, it teaches us that there is no use to 
 appeal to the sword or to armed insurrection for Ire- 
 land. Mr. Froude says that that will only succeed 
 when the Irish people have two things that they do 
 not seem to have now, namely, union as one man, and 
 a determination not to sheathe that sword until the 
 work is done. I know that I would win louder plaud- 
 its from the citizens of America, and speak more 
 popular language \n the ears of my fellow-countrymen 
 if I declared my adhesion to that class of Irishmen. 
 But there is not a living man who loves Ireland any more 
 dearly than I do. There are those who love her more 
 effectively and serve her with greater distinction. But 
 there is no living man who loves Ireland more tender- 
 ly than I. I prize the good-will of my fellow-Irish- 
 
Ireland since the Union, 219 
 
 men, and prize it next to the grace of God. I always 
 prized the popularity which, however unworthily, I 
 possessed with them. But I tell you, American citi- 
 zens, that for all that popularity, and for all that good- 
 will, I would not compromise one iota of my convic- 
 tions, nor would I state what I do not believe to be 
 true. I do not believe in insurrectionary movements 
 in so divided a country as Ireland. 
 
 There is another class of Irishmen who hold that 
 Ireland has a future and a glorious future, that that 
 future is to be wrought out in this way : they say, and 
 I think with justice and right, that wealth acquired by 
 industry brings with it power and political influence. 
 They say, therefore, to the Irish at home, "Try to 
 accumulate wealth ; lay hold of the industries and 
 develope the resources of your country; try, in the 
 meantime, to labor and effect that blessed union, with- 
 out which, there can never be a future for Ireland. 
 That union can only be effected by largeness of mind, 
 by generosity, by urbanity among fellow-citizens, and 
 by rising above the miserable bigotry that carries 
 religious differences and religious hatred into the rela- 
 tions of life that do not belong to religion." They say 
 to the men of Ireland, '* Try to acquire property and 
 wealth ; this can only be done by peaceful, arduous 
 industry, and that industry can only be exercised as 
 long as the country is at peace, as long as there is a 
 truce to violent political agitation." Then these men 
 say — I am giving the opinions of others, not my own 
 — to the Irish in America. *' Men of Ireland in Amer- 
 
220 Lecture V, 
 
 ica — men of Irish birth — men of American birth, but 
 Irish blood — we believe that God has largely entrusted 
 the destinies of Ireland to you. America demands of 
 her citizens only energy, industry, temperance, truth, 
 and obedience to law, and any man that has these, *• 
 with the brains that God gives to every Irishman, is 
 sure in this country to realize fortune and grand posi- 
 tion. If you are faithful to America in these respects, 
 America will be faithful to you. In proportion as the 
 great Irish element in America rise in wealth, it will 
 rise in political influence and power — a political influ- 
 ence and power which, in a few years, is destined to 
 overshadow the whole world, and bring about, through 
 peace and justice, far greater revolution in the cause 
 of honor and in the cause of manhood, than ever have 
 been effected by the sword." 
 
 This is the programme of the second class of Irish- 
 men ; and now, I tell you candidly, that to this pro- 
 gramme I give my hearths and soul's consent. 
 
 You will ask me about separation from the crown of 
 England. Well, that is a ticklish question just now. 
 I dare say you remember that when Charles Edward 
 was Pretender to the crown of England, during the 
 first years of the House of Hanover, there was a toast 
 which the Jacobite gentlemen used to give. It was 
 this: 
 
 " God bless the King ; our noble faith's defender ; 
 Long may he live, and down with the Pretender. 
 But who be the Pretender, who be King, 
 God bless us all, that's quite another thing." 
 
 And yet, with the courage of an old monk, I will 
 
Ireland since the Union, 221 
 
 give you my mind on this very question. History 
 tells us that empires, like men, run the cycle of the 
 years of their life, and then die. No matter how ex- 
 tended their power ; no matter how mighty their influ- 
 ence ; no matter how great their wealth, or invincible 
 their arms, the day comes — the inevitable day — that 
 brings with it decay and disruption. Thus it was with 
 the empire of the Medes and Persians. Thus it was 
 with the mighty empire of the Assyrians. Thus it was 
 with the Egyptians of old. Thus it was with Greece, 
 and thus with Rome. Who would have imagined, for 
 instance, fifteen hundred years ago, before the Goths 
 first came to the walls of Rome, that the greatest 
 power that was to sway the whole Roman Empire, 
 v/ould be the little unknown island floating out in the 
 Western Ocean, know^n only by having been conquered 
 by the legions of Rome, and known as the ultima thule 
 — the tin island m the far-distant ocean ! Yet, in the 
 course of time, this did come to pass. 
 
 Now, my friends, England has been a long time at 
 the top of the wheel. Do you imagine she will always 
 remain there ? I do not want to be more loyal than 
 Mr. Macaulay, and Mr. Macaulay describes a day 
 which he foresees, when the traveller from New Zea- 
 land will take his stand on the broken arch of London 
 Bridge and sketch the ruins of St. Paul's. Is that 
 wheel of England rising or is it falling? Is England to- 
 day what she was twenty years ago ? England, twen- 
 ty years ago, in her first alliance with Napoleon III., 
 had a finger in every pie in Europe. Lord John 
 
222 Lecture V. 
 
 Russell and Lord Palmerston were both busy-bodies 
 of the first water. England to-day has no more to 
 say in the affairs of Europe than the Emperor of 
 China. You see it in the fact — I am only talking 
 philosophy — that a few months ago the three great %. 
 Emperors of Germany, Austria, and Russia came 
 together in Berlin to fix the map of Europe. They 
 didn't even pass England the courtesy to come in 
 and to see what she had to say about it. The 
 army of England is, to-day, nothing ; it is a mere 
 cipher. The German emperor can bring 1,200,000 
 soldiers into the field. England, for the life of her, 
 could not put 200,000 men against him. An English 
 citizen — a loyal Englishman — wrote a book called 
 " The Battle of Dorking," in which he describes the 
 landing of a German army in England, and a battle 
 fought at Dorking, and England without the means 
 of preventing the march of the victorious army upon 
 London. Why should I be more loyal to the English 
 government? Mr. Reed, the first authority in Eng- 
 land, and the chief constructor of the Navy, wrote 
 an article the other day, which was published in a 
 London paper, in which he declares that, at this 
 moment, the British fleet would be afraid to go into 
 Russian waters. Why should I be more loyal than 
 Mr. Reed? An empire begins to totter and decay 
 when it withdraws its forces from the outlying provin- 
 ces, as the decay of the Roman Empire began when 
 the Roman legions were withdrawn from Britain. 
 England to-day says to Canada and Australia, ** Oh, 
 
Ireland since the Union, 223 
 
 take your government into your own hands. I do 
 not want to be bothered with you any more." Eng- 
 land, that eighty years ago fought the United Colo- 
 nies of America as long as she could put a man in 
 the field, has changed her policy. An empire is 
 crumbling to decay when she begins to buy off her 
 enemies, as in the case of the Roman Empire, when 
 she began to buy off the Scythians and Thracians, 
 and the barbarians that came upon her bef9re she 
 fell. A few days ago, England was presented with a 
 little bill by America. She said, '^ Jonathan, I owe 
 you nothing." John Bull buttoned up his pocket and 
 swore he would not pay a cent. Then America said, 
 ** Look here, John, if you don't like this," and he 
 hauled out a sword and put it in one hand, and said, 
 '^take whichever you like." John Bull paid the 
 bill. My friends, that looks very much as if the day 
 of the visit of Macaulay's New Zealander was rapidly 
 approaching. 
 
 In that day, my position is that Ireland will be the 
 mistress of her own destinies, with the liberty that will 
 come to her, not from men, but from that God whom 
 she ever loved. The whole question is, will Ireland on 
 that day be worthy of the glorious destiny that is m 
 the womb of time and the hand of God ? I say that Ire- 
 land will be worthy of it, if that day dawn upon a united 
 people, upon a faithful people, upon a people that will 
 keep, every man, his faith in God, his holy religion, as his 
 fathers before him kept it in dark hours and the terrible 
 day of persecution. I say that Ireland will be worthy of 
 
224 Lecture V, 
 
 the destiny if, on that day, when it dawns upon her, she 
 will be found as distinctive, as individual a people and a 
 race as she is to-day, in her affliction and in her misery. 
 If she foster her traditions, if she keep up her high 
 hopes, if she keep the tender and strong love that her ♦^ 
 people have always had for the Green Isle that bore them, 
 then will Ireland be worthy in that day of her destiny. 
 What shall that destiny be? My friends, if Mr. 
 Froude has proved anything, I think he has proved 
 this general proposition, that although the Almighty 
 God lavished upon the English people many gifts, yet 
 there is one gift He never gave them, that of know- 
 ing how to govern another people. To govern a peo- 
 ple requires, first of all, strict justice ; second, to 
 have the interest of the people at heart — their real 
 interests ; and, third, it requires tact and urbanity. 
 The French have this, the English have not. Look at 
 Alsace and Lorraine, severed now from the French 
 people, their inhabitants heartbroken, leaving their 
 native land rather than become a part of the Ger- 
 man Empire, and why ? because France governed her 
 with justice, and always consulted her true interests 
 by French urbanity and tact. The history of the 
 English connection with Ireland is a history of injus- 
 tice — a history of heartlessness. It is, above all, a his- 
 tory of blundering and want of tact, and not know- 
 ing what to do with the people — never understanding 
 them, nor knowing anything about their genius, about 
 their prejudices, or about the shape and form of their 
 national character. 
 
Ireland since the Union, 225 
 
 But there is another nation that understands Ire- 
 land, and has proved that she understands her ; whose 
 statesmen have always spoken words of bright 
 encouragement and tender sympathy, and of manly 
 hope to Ireland, in her darkest days, and that nation 
 is the United States of America. That mighty land, 
 placed by Omnipotent hand between the far east on 
 the one side, to which she stretches out her glorious 
 arm over the broad Pacific, while on the other hand 
 she sweeps with her left hand over the Atlantic and 
 touches Europe — the mighty land, enclosing in her 
 splendid bosom untold resources of every form of 
 commercial and other wealth — the mighty land, with 
 room for three hundred millions of men ; with millions 
 of oppressed ones from all the world, ever flying to 
 her more than imperial bosom, there to find liberty, 
 and the sacred right of civil and religious freedom. 
 Is there not reason to suppose that in that future, 
 which we cannot see to-day, but which lies before us, 
 that America will be to the whole world what 
 Rome was in the ancient days, what England was 
 a few years ago — the great store-house of the world, 
 the great ruler — ^pacific ruler by justice of the whole 
 world ; her manufacturing power dispensing from out 
 her mighty bosom all the necessaries and all the luxu- 
 ries of life to the whole world around her ? She may 
 be destined, and I believe she is, to rise rapidly into 
 that gigantic power that will overshadow all other na- 
 tions. When that conclusion does come to pass, what 
 is more natural than that Ireland — now, I will sup- 
 
226 Lecture V, 
 
 pose, mistress of her destinies — should turn and stretch 
 all the arms of her sympathy and love across the in- 
 tervening waves of the Atlantic, and be received, an 
 independent State, into the mighty confederation of 
 America? Mind — I am not speaking treason. Re- 
 member, I said distinctly that all this is to come to 
 pass after Macaulay's New Zealander has arrived. 
 America will require an emporium for her European 
 trade. Ireland lies there, right between her and Eu- 
 rope, with its splendid coast and vast harbors, able to 
 shelter her commercial and other fleets. America 
 may require a great European store-house, and a great 
 European hive for American manufactures. Ireland 
 has manufacturing water-power flowing down to the 
 sea, which in future may be busy in turning wheels set 
 upon those streams by American capital and Irish in- 
 dustry. If ever that day comes ; if ever that Union 
 comes, it will be no degradation to Ireland to join 
 hands with America, because America does not enslave 
 her friends. She accepts them on terms of glorious 
 equality, and she respects the rights of the peoples 
 who cast their lots with hers. 
 
 Now, I have done with this subject, and with Mr. 
 Froude. I have but one word to say before I retire. 
 If, during the course of these five lectures, one single 
 word personally offensive to this distinguished gentle- 
 man has escaped my lips, I take that word back now. 
 I apologize to him before he asks me. I beg to assure 
 him that such a word never came wilfully from my 
 mind or from my heart. He says he loves Ireland. I 
 
Ireland since the Union, 227 
 
 believe, according to his lights, he does love Ireland. 
 Our lights are very different from his. But still. Al- 
 mighty God will judge every man according to his 
 lights. 
 
 THE VERDICT. 
 
 After the applause had subsided, the Very Rev. 
 Father Starrs, Vicar-General, came forward and 
 said : — 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: I have merely a few 
 words to say to you before you separate this evening. 
 You all know that this is the last lecture of the course 
 by the Very Rev. Father Burke in reply to the lectures 
 of Mr. Froude, the English historian; and I know 
 very well that you must all feel satisfied with the 
 manner in which he has replied to the lectures of that 
 distinguished gentleman. But nevertheless, I take 
 this opportunity to move a vote of thanks to the 
 Very Rev. Father Burke for the able, dignified, and 
 learned manner in which he has accomplished his 
 purpose, in the course of lectures which he has just 
 concluded. 
 
 Voices, — I second the motion. 
 
 Father Starrs, — The motion has been seconded. 
 Are you ready for the question ? 
 
 Voices, — Question ! Question ! 
 
 Father Starrs, — All in favor of this motion will 
 please say '* Aye." 
 
 A tremendous *^ Ky^ " resounded vci the vast audito- 
 rium from pit to dome. 
 
228 
 
 Lecture V, 
 
 Father Starrs, — All opposed will say ** No." 
 No response was heard. 
 Father Starrs, — It is carried unanimously. 
 [Tremendous applause.] 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 (i) Page lo. Mr. Froude in his '' Reply to Father 
 Burke and Others," denies that he sought such a verdict 
 of acquittal or approbation of England and her policy, 
 from the American people. He states that he only 
 asks the approving force of American opinion, to back 
 him in his opposition to the idea of a repeal of the 
 Union or '^ Home Rule " as it is called to-day. His 
 leading thought throughout his lectures is, that the Irish 
 don't know how to govern or legislate for themselves ; 
 that for them home legislation and an Irish Parliament 
 would be a curse and not a blessing. In order to prove 
 his case, he found it necessary to enter into the history 
 of Ireland, and whilst the question of Irish capability for 
 self-government remains a profound mystery, yet un- 
 solved by experience, Mr. Froude has made it tolera- 
 bly clear to the American mind that English govern- 
 ment in Ireland has been a woeful and disastrous 
 failure. Whether we Irish know how to govern our- 
 selves remains to be seen, but, thanks to Mr. Froude, 
 it is clear that England does not know how to govern 
 us. 
 
 (2) Mr. Froude takes me to task for asserting that 
 the Irish by descent in this land are 14,000,000 (I take 
 
230 Appendix. 
 
 no notice of his total of 22,000,000), and he quotes the 
 census of 1870. The reader will perceive that I do not 
 give these figures as my own, but only as the surmises 
 of others, and as what I heard people say. On fur- 
 ther inquiry I find that I am not so far from the truth 
 in asserting that the total of Irish birth and descent 
 in this land falls little short of 14,000,000. 
 
 (3) Mr. Froude objects to my speculations on the 
 decay of England, inasmuch as I am a British subject 
 in whom he says, '* it is scarcely becoming." I cannot 
 see it in this light, and I confess there are few ques- 
 tions on which I speculate with greater pleasure. 
 
 (4) Mr. Froude claims to be a grand exception to 
 this rule. He has no contempt, but an exceptional 
 respect for the Irish, of whom he recognizes only two 
 classes, the peasants and the demagogues. The fact 
 of my not being a digger of the soil may explain Mr. 
 Froude*s manner of dealing with me, which by the way 
 is a curious illustration of his ^* exceptional respect for 
 the Irish." How hard a thing it is to be insolent to 
 others (no matter how humble), without lowering ones- 
 self! I could scarcely realize the learned historian, the 
 man of name, the elegant, refined graduate of Oxford, 
 when I read of Mr. Froude describing Father Burke 
 as ''the raal thing as we say over there," or describing 
 an Irish chieftain of great distinction as *' the broth of 
 a boy." 
 
 (5) '' I do not hate the Catholic religion," says Mr. 
 Froude. I thought he did, and I honored him for it. 
 If the Catholic religion were what Mr. Froude believes 
 it and describes it to be, I should hate and detest it, 
 and so should every honest man. Here is Mr. Froude's 
 
Appendix, 231 
 
 idea and description of the Catholic religion (^' Essay- 
 on the Condition and Prospects of Protestantism,'* page 
 134): **To sacrifice our corrupt inclinations is dis- 
 agreeable and difficult. To sacrifice bulls and goats 
 in one age, to mutter pater nosters and go to a priest 
 for absolution in another is simple and easy. Priests 
 themselves encourage a tendency which gives them 
 consequence and authority. They need not be con- 
 scious rogues, but their convictions go along with their 
 interests, and they believe easily what they desire that 
 others should believe. So the process goes on, the 
 moral element growing weaker and weaker, and at 
 last dying out altogether. Men lose a horror for sin 
 when a private arrangement with a confessor will clear 
 it away. Religion becomes a contrivance to enable 
 them to live for pleasure and to lose nothing by it ; 
 a hocus pocus which God is supposed to have contrived 
 to cheat the Devil — a conglomerate of half truths 
 buried in lies." This is Mr. Froude's idea of the 
 Catholic religion, and yet he tells us he does not hate 
 it. Great God ! 
 
 (6) Although Mr. Froude disclaims this and says 
 that he asks for no such verdict, yet I must remind 
 the reader, that he held up for the admiration of the 
 American people such men as Henry VIII. and Oliver 
 Cromwell. Now it is not these men but their princi- 
 ples and policy which Mr. Froude canonizes, and wno- 
 ever endorses him is an avowed admirer and abettor 
 of religious persecution the most atrocious. 
 
 (7) Mr. Froude says that '' order was growing out 
 of the fighting " everywhere but in Ireland. Whoever 
 reads the history of Ireland fairly will perceive that, out 
 
232 Appendix, 
 
 of all the turmoil and confusion of the time, order was 
 rapidly growing and a return to first sanctity, at the 
 time when the Norman invasion came to check that 
 growth and to throw Ireland back into greater confu- 
 sion and misery than that from which she had escaped. 
 
 (8) Mr. Froude takes strong exception to my as- 
 sertion that England was demoralized at this time, and 
 appeals to her intellectual and physical prestige and 
 power. I am speaking of spiritual demoralization, 
 and the strange spirit of indifference which seemed to 
 possess so many, and which alone can account for the 
 action of a Parliament and a people prepared to accept 
 every mad whim of Henry and Elizabeth as religion. 
 
 (9) Mr. Froude attaches little importance to the 
 letter of St. Anselm. It is not a State Paper. If it 
 were some lying despatch of "the artful Cecil,'* the 
 learned gentleman would perhaps treat it with more 
 consideration. It is, however, important not only in 
 itself, but as coming after that of Lanfranc, which shows 
 that the peacefulness of Munster was not the mere 
 passing thing which Mr. Froude seems to think a tran- 
 sitory and brief lull in the storm ; but a state of affairs 
 which was becoming the usual and recognized condi- 
 tion of the people. 
 
 (10) This is one of the strangest fallacies of the 
 modern school of historians who " evolve history out 
 of their own consciousness.** We have the clearest 
 proofs that from the days of St. Patrick, Ireland has 
 ever been in relations, the most intimate and loving, 
 with the head of the Catholic Church. It is worthy 
 of remark that whilst every nation in Europe has at 
 some time or other adhered to an anti-pope. Ireland 
 
Appendix. 233 
 
 never made a mistake, but with the instinct of divine 
 faith always clung to the true Pontiff. 
 
 (11) Much more proof might be adduced against the 
 authenticity of Adrian's Bull, but what is given suf- 
 fices. The popular argument now-a-days is that the 
 Pope had no right to ^vsi^ away Ireland, if he gave 
 it, but as Mr. Froude justly remarks, the Pope, 700 
 years ago, represented the public conscience. The 
 historian admits that 700 years ago there was such a 
 thing as a public conscience, represented by the Pope, 
 in virtue of the agreement and acquiescence of the 
 powers then in existence. Perhaps Mr. Froude would 
 kindly inform us if there be such a thing as a public 
 conscience in existence to-day, and by whom it is 
 represented. 
 
 (12) See ** The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland,** 
 by John P. Prendergast. The learned author asserts 
 and proves that the design of the English from first 
 to last was to acquire all the land of Ireland into their 
 own hands. Hence arose all the invasions, wars, 
 settlements, plantations, penal laws, etc., which have 
 made Ireland ** the Niobe of nations." 
 
 (13) Mr. Froude, with more ingenuity than candor, 
 explains this fact by pleading that the dead Irishman 
 and his murderer got Brehon law. Does the learned 
 gentleman forget that the Irishman, John McGilmore, 
 was in the pale, consequently entitled to English law ; 
 that he was in the service of an English master, con- 
 sequently under English law. Reverse the case, and 
 make the Irishman the murderer ; would he then 
 get the benefit of Brehon law ? Certainly not. Bre- 
 hon legislation was only recognized when it favored 
 
234 Appendix, 
 
 the English and covered their crimes. The Old 
 Bailey lost an able special pleader when Mr. Froude 
 took to writing history. 
 
 (14) Mr. Froude claims for the Geraldines and 
 others of the *' old English," that they were " more 
 Irish than the Irish themselves." It is, however, 
 worthy of notice, that in national contests they were 
 not to be trusted, as they generally sympathized with 
 England, and as a rule (not, however, without some 
 exceptions) hated and despised the poor Irish clans- 
 men, who were so faithful to them. It is a fact, that 
 in the rebellion of Thomas, Earl of Kildare, under 
 Henry VIIL, the Irish chieftains scarcely interfered at 
 all, having had for once the good sense to let the 
 English king settle it with his feudal Anglo-Norman 
 lords. 
 
 (15) For the deplorable want of union amongst the 
 Irish chieftains we have to blame, not only the over- 
 weening pride of name and blood, but also the old Cel- 
 tic constitution, which, however, favorable to free- 
 dom, was not calculated to create strong military or 
 united action. It was of old as it is to-day. A free 
 people are not always the strongest, and great mili- 
 taSi^y power naturally leans towards despotism. 
 
 (16) Mr. Froude is hard upon Shane O'Neil, and 
 with reason, for that chieftain knew how to hold his 
 own. We have it acknowledged, however, by Mr. 
 Froude that Shane was the tanist, and that alone 
 justified the young Prince's action ; for the succession 
 was his according to Irish law, and Con O'Neil had 
 no right to change that succession, or that law, with- 
 out the consent of the people. 
 
Appendix, 235 
 
 (17) The parliament of 1689 did not attaint any land- 
 owner for being a Protestant, but simply passed a bill 
 of attainder against every one, Catholic or Protestant, 
 who was in arms against the king, or who refused to 
 obey his proclamation. To designate this as persecu- 
 tion is simply a fallacy. 
 
 (18) The churches were desolate and ruined under 
 Elizabeth, simply because the Catholic clergy had to 
 fly, and those who came in their place, came only as 
 plunderers. The Catholic clergy were driven out by 
 the Act of Uniformity, with which their consciences 
 would not permit them to comply ; yet Mr. Froude 
 states that the churches were abandoned because 
 Elizabeth would not enforce the Act of Uniformity. 
 Strange reasoning ! 
 
 (19) Mr. Froude asserts that the Earls, O'Neil and 
 O'Donnel fled, because it was discovered that they 
 were plotting again. The history of Ireland tells a 
 different tale, and speaks of a sham plot gotten up to 
 entrap them, fabricated through anonymous letters, 
 and the like agencies. King James, fearing that his 
 reputation might be blemished by the flight of the 
 Earls, issued a proclamation, in which he said, **that 
 it should appear to the world as clear as the sun by 
 evident proof, that the only ground of these Earls* de- 
 parture, was the private knowledge and inward terror 
 of their own guiltiness." The proofs thus promised 
 were never produced^ nor is there a shred of evidence 
 of any such conspiracy. In the subsequent plantation 
 of Ulster, the Irish, according to Mr. Froude, were 
 allowed to remain, provided they took the oath of alle- 
 giance. Cox, the historian of the time, and others tel) 
 
236 Appendix, 
 
 us that the oath demanded of them was the oath of 
 supremacy, very different from that of allegiance. 
 Even then they were allowed to remain only as ser- 
 vants and laborers, holding, by precarious tenure, small 
 portions of the worst and most barren land. The un- 
 dertakers were strictly forbidden to sell a rood of the 
 land to ** the mere Irish." ** We found the people,'* 
 says Edmund Burke, ** heretics and idolaters ; we have, 
 by way of improving their condition, rendered them 
 slaves and beggars." ^* They divided the nation," ob- 
 serves the same great statesman, *' into two distinct 
 parties, without common interest, sympathy, or con- 
 nection. One of these bodies was to possess all the 
 franchises, all the property, all the education. The 
 other was to be composed of drawers of water and 
 cutters of turf for them." Mr. Froude chimes in with 
 Hume and others in praising James for his legislation. 
 ** Parliament repealed, simply and for ever, every 
 law which had made a distinction between the English 
 and Irish inhabitants of the country." If this salu- 
 tary law had been made before the Irish were plun- 
 dered, it would have been better. " After having des- 
 poiled an entire sixth-part of the nation of their pro- 
 perty, after having dispersed them here and there as 
 suited his purpose, after having transported a large 
 portion of them to the wild wastes of Connaught and 
 Munster, after having impressed into his armies such 
 of them as * had not cattle or followers of their own,* 
 we are marked with the absurd falsehood that * he 
 took them under his protection' Just such protection 
 as the lawless pirate extends to the peaceful mariners 
 on board an unarmed merchant vessel." (Carey's '* Vin- 
 
Appendix, 237 
 
 diciae/') It was but poor consolation to the Irish, after 
 one hundred and fifty thousand of them had been robb- 
 ed and stripped of their property, to make a condes- 
 cending law abolishing at last the distinction between 
 them and the English. James took good care not to 
 aboHsh the legal distinction until he had first estab- 
 lished the social barrier that divides the rich from the 
 poor. 
 
 (20) I do not charge Mr. Froude with defending 
 Strafford's administration. He has two much of the 
 Roundhead spirit in him to do that. He hates Straf- 
 ford, though he admires worse men. But Strafford's 
 administration fell both under Mr. Froude's notice and 
 mine, and I felt justified in asking the American pub- 
 lic, could they approve of it. The impeachment of 
 Strafford for his Irish administration proves no love 
 for Ireland on the part of Mr. Froude's parliamentary 
 friends, but only a hatred of the unfortunate man, for 
 whose blood they were thirsting. 
 
 (21) Mr. Froude seems astonished at my account of 
 the massacre at Island Magee. He says Father Burke 
 multiplies the number of the slain by one hundred. 
 According to Mr. Froude there were slain only thirty 
 individuals. According to Leland there were thirty 
 families. According to the author of a ^' Collection of 
 some of the Massacres and Murders committed on the 
 Irish in Ireland since the 23 October, 1641," appended 
 to Clarendon's ^* Vindication of the Earl of Ormond," 
 and published in London, in 1662, there were three 
 thousand persons. According to the tradition of the 
 people, which in a matter so comparatively recent 
 must carry some weight, there were three thousand. 
 
238 Appendix, 
 
 Now of all these accounts I hold that the last is most 
 likely to be true. Mr. Froude knows nothing about 
 it and refers us generally to Dr. Reid. Dr. Reid says 
 Mr. Froude proves *^ how little Leland knew about 
 it.*' But the author of the collection published his 
 statement within twenty years of the occurrence, ap- 
 pealed to living witnesses, many of them enemies, 
 threw his assertion out before the world and in the 
 teeth of such men as Sir Audley Mervyn, Sir Robert 
 Hanna, and others, who would have contradicted him 
 if they could, and yet his account says Dr. Curry, 
 *' has never yet been proved to be otherwise, nor as 
 far as I have learned, even attempted to be proved.** 
 
 Mr. Froude attempts to establish that Sir Charles 
 Coote*s cruelties in Wicklow and elsewhere were 
 merely retaliation for the still greater cruelties of the 
 Irish. I deny it. Sir Charles Coote was rioting in 
 blood before the rising of October, 1641, and I have 
 given sujfficient proof that Parsons and Borlase, the 
 Lords Justices, were only too glad of that rising, and 
 too anxious to extend it. As for Mr. Froude's har- 
 rowing description from Sir John Temple, it has been 
 exploded before and I need not linger over it. Tem- 
 ple was so much ashamed of his book that he refused 
 to allow a second edition to be published. 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 TO ^ Mam Library * 198 M ain Stacks 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS. 
 
 Renewls and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to fhe due date. 
 
 Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405. 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 JAN 2 7 199^ 
 
 muxxz^ 
 
 FORM NO. DD6 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 uiNivtioMY g^p^<^L£Y,CA 94720-6000