Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

ing out so many parties from Dublin | lowing extract from Carte's life of the duke of Ormonde :-"Sir W. Petty computes the British (including therein both English and Scotch) to be, before the rebellion, in proportion to the Irish (in Ireland) as two to eleven; at which rate, there were about two hundred and twenty thousand in the whole kingdom. Now it is certain, that the great body of the English was settled in Munster and Leinster, where very few murders were committed; and that in Ulster, which was the dismal scene of the massacre, there were above one hundred thousand Scots, who, before the general plantation of it, had settled in great numbers in the county of Down and Antrim, and

and the other garrisons to destroy the rebels, in which expeditions care was seldom taken to discriminate, and men, women, and children, were promiscuously slain; but, above all, the martial-law, executed by sir Charles Coote, and the burning of the pale for seventeen miles in length, and twenty-five in breadth, by the earl of Ormonde. These measures not only exasperated the rebels, and induced them to commit the like or greater cruelties, but they terrified the nobility and gentry out of all thoughts of submission, and convinced them that there was no room to hope for pardon; nor no means of safety left them but in the sword.” Thus the nation found itself compel-new shoals of them had come over led to arm; and yet this rising is called by English historians an unnatural and odious insurrection, while the rebellion of the English and Scotch covenanters, fomented by imaginary discontent and religious delusion, is still looked upon as a meritorious struggle for civil and religious freedom!!! What deluded gulls are the present enlightened race of this most thinking nation!

Having thus established the fact, that the Irish massacre was begun by protestants, whose cruelties instigated the catholics to deeds of retaliation, unjustified by the principles of their religion, I shall now proceed to shew that the extent of the outrages said to have been committed by the latter, rests upon no better foundation than the falsehoods I have already detected. Rapin and Echard both concur in stating the number of protestants actually massacred at forty or fifty thousand, and the continuator of Baker reckons them at two hundred thousand.-How far the assertion of either of these historians, and they confine themselves to mere affirmation, is consistent with truth, I shall leave the reader to determine, when he has read the fol

upon the plantation of six escheated counties, and they were so very powerful therein, that the Irish, either out of fear of their numbers, or from some other political reason, spared those of that nation (making proclamation, on pain of death, that no Scotchman should be molested in body, goods, or lands, &c.) It cannot, therefore be presumed, that there were, at most, above twentythousand English souls of all ages and sexes in Ulster, at this time; and of these, as appears by the lords justices letter, March 4th, 1641-2, there were several thousands got safe to Dublin, &c. besides six thousand women and children, whom captain Mervyn saved in Fermanagh; and others that got safe to Derry, Colerain, Carrickfergus, &c." By this extract it will appear, that not more than one-hundredth part of the lesser number stated to be slain in cold-blood, could have met with an untimely fate, and those who suffered, it must be observed, fell by the hands of a rabble, as the first thing which Owen O'Neile did, after being appointed to command the native forces, was to express his abhorrence of the cruelties that had

been committed upon the English, and to send the few remaining prisoners that were left of them safe to Dundalk. Thus then there were some prisoners made; and this fact does away the other statement of Rapin, that the Irish formed the project "of cutting the throats of all the English in the kingdom!"— Reader, what are we now to think of the unauthorized assertions of these protestant historians, and the blind stupidity of those men, who arrogantly claim so large a share of religious and political pre-eminence over their catholic neighbours, yet give implicit credit to such grossly partial and overcharged tales.

THE GRIEVANCES AND CONDUCT OF
THE PURITANS AND CATHOLICS
COMPARED.

[ocr errors]

are industriously disseminated by infatuated members of biblical, evangelical, and methodistical societies, the latter is employed in fostering the delusion by declaiming against the despotism of catholic states, and the uear alliance of the doctrines of the catholic religion to slavery and ty ranny; forgetting, poor souls, that British liberty was more pure, and the constitution more free from corrupt abuse, when the nation was catholic, than it has been since the era of the blessed reformation. So active, indeed, have the enemies of our religious principles been in their endeavours to poison the public mind against us, that a catholic can scarcely associate with those who differ from him in religious opinions without being subject to the scoffings and reproaches of his neighbour. Let him be ever so correct in his dealings; let him be a good father, a

Such are the senti

As this is a period of general complaint and discontent, in which the protestant reformer and the Eng-friendly neighbour, an upright tradeslish and Irish catholic each take a share, though on different grounds, I feel an irresistible impulse to offer a few further remarks on the occurrences of Charles's reign, and draw a comparison between the respective grievances of the three kingdoms, which led to the grand rebellions, and ended in the subversion of the constitution in church and state. By so doing, I flatter myself I shall enable the reader to form a just estimate of the merit due to the struggles of the forefathers of the present professed friends to civil and religious liberty, and the ancestors of the catholic petitioners of this day. This is now become urgently necessary, because, not only the press of bigotry, but that which is under the control of those who pretend to be the friends of religious toleration, cordially unite in maligning the principles of catholicity, Thus, while the former is vomiting forth the most absurd and infamous lies about the cruelty of papists, which

man, and a liberal benefactor to the
poor, still, should he be a catholic,
he cannot be an honest citizen, nor
worthy to hold a civil office under
the state; because the doctrines of
his church being always the same, he
must, of course, possess an unbend-
ing conscience in matters of reli-
gion, and therefore be uncharitable
and intolerant.
ments of many protestants, whose
character and ability place them high
in the estimation of their country;
it therefore cannot be surprising that
a vast number of the illiterate mul-
titude should entertain similar ideas.
Yet, does the history of protestant-
ism prove, and particularly that of
the sister islands, that under no de-
nomination of christians has INTO-
LERANCE been cherished to a great-
er extent than in those states where
the protestant faith is predominant.
If the reader doubts the assertion,
let him look into the late volumi-
nous report of the house of com-
mons on catholic affairs, where he

And what

re

will find that the lutheran and calvi- | him to punish those who dared to benistic states of Germany adopted the lieve in such superstitious idolatry. most rigorous and arbitrary measures Did he repeat his application, he was to prevent their vassals from exer- answered by the presentation of bills cising that liberty of conscience for his assent, making the belief in which they contend is the inherent popery a capital crime, punishable right of mankind in general. Let with death; and enforcing other him examine the historic records of harassing and oppressive penalties on the Stuarts, and he will find that the daring offenders. Did he again from religious intolerance sprung all urge the necessities of the state, his the evils of those days. ear was assailed with fresh complaints against his tolerating disposition, and he was solicited by these benevolent legislators to put in execution the bloody laws which the merciless Elizabeth had passed in her reign, and they had subsequently enacted, on the devoted heads of his catholic subjects.-James evaded complying with their demands, and had course at times to other means, not authorised by the constitution, to obtain money. But, whenever he found himself under the compulsion of calling a parliament, he was sure to experience a repetition of the same grievances, and so high did some of the leading members carry their arrogance in speaking of the designs of the monarch, that James determined to punish them, which he did by arrestation and imprisonment. In these consisted the national grievances of this monarch's reign, and the reader will easily decide whether the king or the senators were the greatest tyrants. When Charles assumed the sceptre, he had to undergo similar vexations. Although attached with conscientious integrity to the doctrines of the established church, Charles was not desirous of following the bloody steps of Elizabeth; he did not want to become a persecutor; he was desirous of ruling with justice and mercy. As he did not see the mere profession of catholicity constituted a crime against the state, unaccompanied with any overt act of treason or sedition, he favoured those of that profession by the supposed power of his kingly preroga

is it but religious intolerance that encourages the foul and filthy falsehoods of our own times against catholic institutions, and deprives five millions of subjects of their civil rights for following the dictates of conscience? By the reformation, Englishmen became first the tools of despots, they next submitted to the iron rule of unprincipled demagogues, subsequently they divided themselves into jarring factions, and they are now paying pretty well for the folly of their conduct. Yet still they boast of the enlightened and tolerant maxims of protest antism, and court the system which has led to the evils they endure; instead of reflecting on the causes which have occasioned them, and pursuing in future a more liberal and equitable disposition towards those who happen to dissent from them. Whoever has made the history of this country his study, must be perfectly aware that the sum and substance of the grievances of the struggling forefathers of our modern reformers was the growth of popery; this was the burthen of their song, and not a single petition or remonstrance was sent up to the throne, in which this heavy calamity did not appear as the heaviest of their weighty afflictions. Did James apply to his faith ful English commons for a supply of money to carry on the affairs of the nation, he was answered by an address complaining of the partiality shewn by him to persons who were professed papists, and calling upon

|

[ocr errors]

were the ancient champions of religious and civil liberty! How worthy of being imitated by their matchless descendants and admirers! The disposition of Charles did not accord with the sanguinary desires of these parliamentary religionists, and he hesitated to comply with the full extent of their demand. This led to further variance; from religious disputes they proceeded to question his

increased as the dispute lengthened. Charles found himself under the necessityof using conciliatory measures; he conceded some essential privileges of the crown into their hands; this

the refusal of which was the signal for open rebellion and civil war. The first parliament of Charles, according to Rushworth, resolved," that religion should have the first place in their debates; next, the king

tive from the effects of the penal | code, and some he employed in state affairs, availing himself of their integrity and abilities. This was a sore grievance in the eyes of our tolerant strugglers for civil and religious liberty. Another cause of discontent was his marrying a catholic princess, which they said gave encouragement to the followers of that religion, and depressed the energies of the professors of the true protest-prerogative. The list of grievances ant faith. Contemptible as these grievances must appear in the view of every unprejudiced and candid man, they were deemed not unworthy the notice of the legislators of those times, and each successive parlia-made them bolder in their demands, ment poured forth its complaints against them in the ear of the monarch, whom they did not scruple to accuse of being popishly affected, because he would not comply with their mercenary and intolerant desires. In all their petitions the pa-dom's safety; and then supplies.”— pists were ever described as the occasion of all public calamities, and the spilling of their blood was considered a specific remedy for the national diseases. "The petition of the commons in 1628, (says Guthrie) reduces all public misery to the increase of idolatry and superstition, or, in other words, of popery." To remove these grievances, it was pro-and discipline of the church of Euge posed by the most tolerant forefathers of our tolerant “saints" and "reformers," that the full vigour of the penal laws should be enforced against the papists; that they should be debarred from educating their own offspring; that the liberty of the press should be taken from them;ment restoring the bishops to their and that they should be expelled former temporal dignities, prerogafrom every office of the state, banish- tives, and privileges, and annulling ed from the king's presence, and con- all acts made in prejudice to them; fined to their own dwellings, five and in 1612 he prevailed on a genemiles from which they were not to ral assembly of the kirk, held in move without a licence from four Glasgow, to consent to the prelates justices of the peace and the bishop being restored to their spiritual of the diocese. Oh! how sweetly rights. The next thing done was benign, how tolerant, how liberal the establishing a court of high com

Thus religion became the stalking. horse of hare-brained demagogues, the most violent disputes were occasioned thereby, and the kingdom was deluged with the blood of its bravest sous. In Scotland the same effects arose from religious bigotry and enthusiasm. It had long been the desire of James to introduce the form

land into that of Scotland, and esta-
blish in the two countries an uui-
formity of creed; but time and cir-
cumstances prevented him from fully
completing his object, although he
made some advances towards it.
1606 he obtained an act of parlia-.

In

to commence reading the new form before all the public officers of state, assembled on the appointed day in the cathedral of that city, than a clamourous shout of curses and im precations were uttered by the rab

tent, and the forerunner of a general
rebellion throughout that kingdom.
An attentive perusal of this affair, as
recorded by the before mentioned
calvinistic writer, is sufficient to con-
vince the candid reader, that this at-
tempt to introduce the spiritual su-
premacy of the king into Scotland
was the sole cause of the Scotch re-
bellion against Charles.
It being
expressly stated by that historian, on
the renewal of the war in 1640, after
several fruitless attempts at negocia-
tion, that the whole question of
right between Charles and the Scots
was reduced to this. Whether
James and Charles could alter the
government of the kirk of Scotland,
notwithstanding the opposition of the
kirk itself; and whether the Scots,

mission, like that in England, which | tent of the king's wishes. But, no before was unknown in Scotland.-sooner had the dean opened the book "As the Scots, (savs Rapin) had never given their king the title of supreme head of the church, as was done in England, there had been no occasion to establish a high com mission in Scotland. to exercise the supremacy in the king's name."ble, which was the signal of disconNothing was now wanting to complete the measure but causing the English liturgy to be received in Scotland, and a general assembly was called at Aberdeen, to consider on the subject. The king, however, finding his project not very palatable to the people, and fearful of rousing them into action, thought proper to defer the fulfilment of his designs until he had settled the affairs of the palatinate, and the treaty of marriage with Spain, which occupied his attention during the latter part of his reign, and death overtook him before he could realize his wishes.His son Charles, who was no less eager than his father to unite the two kingdoms in one church, found himself unable to finish the affair commenced by his royal parent and pre-might demand the abolition of episdecessor, with that celerity he desired. His wars with Spain and France, and his disputes with the English parliament on the question of his prerogatives, occupied principally his solicitude during the first part of his sovereignty. The clergy, however, having composed a liturgy, the king sent it unto Scotland, and ordered it to be read in all the churches in Edinburgh on Easter Sunday, 1637, but upon further consideration this order was revoked, and the 23d of July in the same year, was the day finally appointed, notice of which was given by the council, that the public might not be taken by surprise. As no symptoms of disapprobation appeared among the people, according to Rapin's account, the council entertained not the least doubt of succeeding to the entire exORTHOD. JOUR, Vol. V.

copacy, established on the ruins of presbytery, on pretence of the prac tices of the court to get acts for that purpose passed." For this did the people of Scotland revolt against their sovereign, and bound themselves by a solemn league and covenant to enforce, by the power of the sword, the same object which Charles had in view, namely, uniformity of religion.

GRIEVANCES OF IRELAND
STATED..

Different was the situation of the catholics in Irelaud to that of the members of the church of England, or the kirk of Scotland. To the sufferings endured in the cause of religion, they had a long list of national grievances to complain of, and it is not a little remarkable, that,

T

« ElőzőTovább »