There is a very remarkable and conclusive proof that popish bigotry had no great influence on the transactions of these times in Ireland, which is this; that when Mary, a popish princess, was called to the throne, and the Catholic religion restored, rebellions continued just as frequent as ever.
Sir Richard Cox allows the fact, but is so blinded by the idea, that every rebellion must have arisen from religion, that he professes himself at a loss to account for it
The following chieftains were engaged in reiterated insurrections: O'Connor, O'Neil, O'Carrol, Cavenagh, O'Madden, O'Molloy, O'Doyne, Mac Coughlan, Mac Geoghan, Fylemy Duff, O'Reilly, the Earl of Desmond, and Daniel O'Brien.
These very chieftains who had acknowledged Henry's supremacy in Church and State, revolted and agitated the whole country under the reign of the most zealous friend of the Catholic religion.
Surely, attachment to the Catholic religion was hot the ruling motive to which we must refer the events of these times.
A still more striking proof that the Irish Roman Catholics in Queen Mary's reign, were very little infected with religious bigotry, may be drawn from their conduct towards the Protestants, when the Protestants were at their mercy.
Were we to argue from the representations of the indelible character of the Catholic religion, as pourtrayed by its adversaries, we should have expected that the Irish Catholics would have exercised every kind of persecution which the double motives of zeal and retaliation could suggest. The Catholic laity, in all the impunity of triumphant bigotry, hunting the wretched Heretics from their hiding places—the Catholic clergy pouring out the libation of human blood at the shrine of the God of Mercy, and acting before high Heaven those scenes which make the angels weep.
But on the contrary. Though the religious feelings of the Irish Catholics, and their feelings as men, had been treated with very little ceremony during the two preceding reigns; they made a wise and moderate use of their ascendancy. They entertained no resentment for the past; they laid no plans for future domination.
Even Leland allows that the only instance of popish zeal, was annulling grants which Archbishop Brown had made, to the injury of the See of Dublin, and certainly this step was full as agreeable to the rules of law and equity, as to popish zeal.
The assertors of the Reformation during the preceding reigns, were every way unmolested, or as the Protestant historian chooses to term it, were allowed to sink into obscurity and neglect.
Such, was the general spirit of toleration, that many English families, friends to the Reformation, took refuge in Ireland, and there enjoyed their opinions and worship without molestation.
The Irish Protestants, vexed that they could not prove a single instance of bigotry against the Catholics, in this their hour of trial, invented a tale, as palpably false as it is childish, of an intended persecution, (but a persecution by the English government, not by the Irish Catholics) and so much does bigotry pervert all candour and taste, that even the Earl of Cork, Archbishop Usher, and in later times, Dr. Leland, were not ashamed to support the silly story of Dean Cole and the Knave of Clubs.
How ought these perverse and superficial men to blush, who have said that the Irish Roman Catholics must he bigots and rebels, from the very nature of their religion, and who have advanced this falsehood,
The Irish Roman Catholics bigots! The Irish Roman Catholics are the only sect that ever resumed power, without exercising vengeance.
Shew a brighter instance, if you can, in the whole page of history. Was this the conduct of Knox or Calvin, or of the brutal Council of Edward VI. who signed its bloody warrants with tears? Has this been the conduct of the Irish Protestants?
Had the Irish Roman Catholics, when they gained the ascendancy, debarred you of the rights of property, of the benefits of education, of the enjoyment of social worship, of the security of your domestic peace, of all that makes life grateful, by making it respectable; O! how would you not have bewailed your unmerited sufferings—how would you not have adjured the detestation of God and man on such monstrous oppression!
How strangely does bigotry cramp the heart and understanding! who could have thought that so obvious and splendid a proof of the original virtues of the Irish Roman Catholics, as this, should have been slurred over, and almost effaced by the wilful blindness of Protestant writers!
So natural is it that lions should be always represented as vanquished when men are the painters.
The Catholic religion, certainly could have no effect in producing rebellions during Mary's reign, yet we have shewn that rebellion still existed.
The causes of it were still the same.
‘The old Irish inhabitants of Leix and Offalia, or the King and Queen's Counties, could not patiently resign their claims and possessions to the new settlers. They were ever spiriting up their friends and followers to resist, what they deemed an injurious usurpation of their lands, and thus brought down the vengeance of government upon their heads. Numbers of them were cut off in the field, or executed by martial law, and the whole race of them would have been thus utterly extirpated, had not the Earls of Kildare and Ormond interceded with the Queen, and become sureties for the peaceable behaviour of some survivors!!—of some survivors!’
What a narrative delivered by the respectable Leland without comment or deduction!
Yet, as if the actual commission of unqualified confiscation, was not sufficient to spread alarm, and excite resistance; the English government made an unequivocal demonstration of their intention of possessing themselves of the whole kingdom.
The Chancellor was empowered to direct a commission for viewing all the towns, villages, and waste
This was a direct blow at the independence of the Irish chieftains, and the government were very well aware of the effect this measure was likely to produce, for it provided that this commission might be suspended at any time in seven years, in case it created too much opposition.
Yet such is the inconsistency, such the wavering irresolution of conscious injustice; that at the very time the English government prepared, under the mask of law, to possess themselves of the lands of the native septs; they acquiesced in the constitution, and the lawful title of the Irish dynasties.
‘Owen Macgennis, on the 6th of December, 1553, was admitted by the lord deputy to be chief of his sept.’
Kevanagh, head of the great Leinster family of McMarchad, was created a peer of the realm by the title of Baron Balyan, but by the same patent was nominated chief of his sept or nation; exercising the ancient jurisdiction over all his followers.
So little did the Irish chieftains acknowledge any actual right of sovereignty in the English government,
Yet his interference was sufficient to support the alarm which seems at this time to have spread pretty generally through the Irish chieftains. The first object of the English government was to entail the Irish principalities on the eldest son; which was considered as a submission to the English yoke. The son in this case owed his appointment to the English, and would naturally be subservient to them; whereas when the chieftain was elected by his nation, the English government having no influence in his appointment, could have no presence to consider him as a dependant.
Happily there is one instance of the nature and effects of this species of interference, which may be pretty clearly made out, from such incidental mention as is made of it by historians; and will serve as a specimen of all the rest. This is the extinction of the principality of Thomond.
Murrogh O'Brien, king of Thomond, swore fealty to Henry VIII. and accepted of the title of Earl of Thomond, which earldom was entailed on his son Connor. Murrogh O'Brien retained all his prerogatives, and the title only was entailed; the English government purposely confounded the earldom with the principality, and because the one was
His subjects, however, must have regarded the change with indignation; their prejudices must have been violently shocked at the idea of the old custom of election being violated, and their pride must have been sensibly wounded at the entire loss of influence which they would suffer when the throne was no longer filled by the man of their choice.
Upon the death of Murrogh, his son Connor, who probably had been chosen tanist during his father's life-time, succeeded.
The sept then proceeded to chuse a tanist or successor to him, and their choice fell upon his brother Daniel, in preference to his son.4 This was agreeable to an old Irish custom, which always preferred the brother to the nephew.
Upon this the English government, in Mary's reign, interfered, and insisted upon the son being chosen tanist. A war ensued, in which Connor lost his life,
In this instance we see the advantage which they reaped by setting up a rival to the legal chief. For the son feeling himself entirely dependant on the English government, consented to hold his lands as an English subject, and to renounce the title of the O'Brien. This was regarded by the sept, not as the conduct of a rebellious subject reclaimed to loyalty, but as a dereliction of every honourable, sacred, and legal principle. This is the description the Irish analysts of the time give of it: ‘He accepted,’ they say, the title of earl, but gave up the dignity of Dalkais, to the astonishment and indignation of the, descendants of Heber, Heremon, and Ith.
Here, the designs of the English government, in their anxiety to make the Irish sovereignties hereditary, were plainly betrayed. Their interference became generally suspected, and was always strenuously opposed.
We scarcely need insist, that the war which Daniel O'Brien waged during the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth, was to maintain his right, and not from attachment to his religion.
The insurrection of Shane O'Neil arose from similar motives.
We have seen that the English government, in a moment of power, had caused Matthew, the bastard of Con. O'Neil, to be appointed his successor, and entailed the principality on the heirs male of Matthew.
But upon the death of Con. O'Neil, his legitimate son, Shane O'Neil, was formally invested with the sovereignty, by the sept; and supported his just rights by arms, against his bastard brother and the English government.
It is plain that the conduct of Con. O'Neil, in allowing the succession to the principality to be regulated by the English, was extremely odious to the whole sept; as his son Shane appeared justified in throwing him into prison, and increased his own popularity by doing so.
A few years after the lord deputy, Sir Henry Sydney paid the most abject court to Shane, by going to him, and standing God-father to his child, (which was considered by the Irish as a stronger tie than affinity,) at the very time that Shane was in open arms.
At this ceremony a conversation took place between the lord deputy and Shane; which proves clearly that we have stated correctly the feelings and opinions of the Irish chieftains.
Sir Henry Sydney expostulated with Shane, on account of his insurrection, and his opposition to
He replied, ‘that in the first place, Matthew was a bastard; that anyhow, he could not derive a title from their father Con O'Neil's surrender to Henry VIII. for that Con's surrender was void, because he had but an estate for life in his principality; nor could have more by the law of tanistry, nor could surrender but by consent of the lords of his country; and that even by the English laws, the letters patent were void, because there was no inquisition taken before they were past, nor could there be any inquisition till the country of Tyrone was made shire ground. That he was elected O'Neil by the nation, according to custom; that he was the legitimate son and heir of his father, and lastly, that his title to, all he claims is by prescription.’
Such are his words as related by Sir Richard Cox, and yet the man who could reason thus has since been described as a stupid brute and a rebel.
To a statement so reasonable, Sir Henry Sydney had nothing to reply, and during his government Shane O'Neil was unmolested.
So far religion had little influence on events in Ireland, and the reign of Mary closed, unstained by the crimes of any holy persecutor in Ireland.
We must also do the Irish Protestants the justice to say, that they were free from all spirit of intolerance. That came from England.
The Irish Protestants had undergone no persecution, they consequently neither increased in zeal or numbers. In England, the Protestants had suffered much persecution; their numbers in consequence had multiplied, and their zeal become excessive.
One would imagine that the horrors of Mary's reign in England, would have impressed on the most callous heart, and the dullest understanding, how futile is the barbarity, and how sad the folly of religious intolerance. Yet, so perverse are the feelings of the vulgar, that the English Protestants seemed to rise from under the wheel of persecution, with renewed vigour, to persecute. Every instance of popish bigotry has been recorded, not to deter from bigotry, but to justify a similar indulgence in depraved and malignant passions, under the specious pretexts of retaliation and precaution.
True it is, there is no more difficult task than to suppress those feelings of vengeance which may arise from a natural source, but would be mischievous if generally indulged. Yet, what else is the meaning of virtue? what else the advantage of liberal education, but that the crude and impetuous suggestions of first impressions, should be disciplined and regulated, by the calm conclusions and enlarged views of moral utility?