was, the case would not have been half so bad. In those troubled times, the monasteries seem to have been a social necessity. For travellers they were free hotels; for the poor they were hospitals, centres of charity, and refuges from oppression; and upon them even depended a portion of the work now done by grand juries. All these means of civilisation were recklessly abolished by the Reformers. For, as Mr. Froude testifies, the bridges-the special charge of the religious orders-fell into ruin; the chiefs took possession of the Church lands, the churches fell in and went to ruin, and the unfortunate country seemed lapsing into total savagery.'

These are the hideous facts of history that cannot be explained away. Elizabeth strove in vain to suppress Popery. But she succeeded too well in disorganising society and demoralising the people of both nationalities. How different is this state of things from the rose-coloured pictures so complacently presented by Prelates, dignitaries, and other champions of the late Establishment! These writers describe the native Bishops, clergy, and people as quietly transferring their allegiance to the Queen, and making themselves her willing instruments in purifying the Church, restoring it to its primitive simplicity, eagerly and almost unanimously casting off the galling yoke of the Pope! It is astonishing to what an extent these gross perversions of Irish history, made by men of learning and eminence, have succeeded in deluding both the clergy and the laity of the late Established Church.

A majority of the Marian Bishops may have outwardly conformed when Elizabeth, in her short and decisive way of ending disputes about religion, put before them the alternative-sign or resign' submit or quit'-'refuse to swear if you dare.' And it is possible that a couple of the Irish Bishops assisted Curwen in consecrating those whom the Queen subsequently appointed. We leave the bewildering arguments about the succession to the several Irish Sees, because they have nothing to do with the real question at issue. That many of them did submit to the Queen's supremacy, and in words repudiated the Pope, there is no doubt. But for what purpose? Why, manifestly that they might deceive the Government and be in a position to alienate the property of

the Church, which they saw passing into the hands of their enemies. For perjury committed with this object, they could easily have got the Pope's dispensation. And they would have done what the Queen required the more readily, as they daily expected to hear of her assassination or deposition, to make way for Mary Queen of Scots, who was determined to restore the Roman Catholic worship in Ireland and walk in the footsteps of her Royal namesake. Indeed this fact is admitted by the highest authorities. Archbishop Bramhall, in a work vindicating the consecration of Protestants, asserts that the old Bishops complied, and held their places, and joined in such ecclesiastical acts (as consecration) until they had made away to their kindred all the land belonging to their Sees.' And Cox, in his History of Ireland, says: The very Popish Bishops did assist at the consecration of most of the Protestant Bishops, and complied with the Government, and kept their Sees, until they had sacrilegiously betrayed the Church and alienated much of its possessions.' With this agrees the testimony of Jeremy Taylor, who, in a sermon preached at the consecration of Archbishop Bramhall, said: At the Reformation the Popish Bishops and Priests seemed to conform, and did so, that, by keeping their bishoprics, they might enrich their kindred and dilapidate the revenues of the Church.'

6

Doubtless the Roman party thought that this was a case, if ever there was one, in which the end sanctifies the means; for the property in question was not English or Protestant property, but Irish and Catholic, bestowed by Irish Catholics for the support of their own religion, from which purpose it would otherwise have been alienated by their conquerors and oppressors. Nor should we fling against those old conforming Bishops the charge of perjury without due consideration of times and circumstances. Were their English accusers in a position to cast stones at them, as being without sin in this matter? It would only show gross ignorance of history to suppose that the sanctity of official oaths was more binding three centuries ago than at present. We know how common false swearing is in England; and a Roman Catholic might quote Mr. Buckle and Sir William Hamilton for the fact that England is pre-eminent among nations

for perjury; and Oxford is pre-eminent in England for the same crime.

It is, however, easy enough to find pleas for persecution if men once adopt the barbarous principle that religious opinion is a crime to be punished by the civil magistrate. That principle is still more detestable if it be enforced as an excuse for plunder, effected by means of the law.

CHAPTER VII.

A CRUSADE AGAINST THE REFORMATION.

THE celebrated Hugh O'Neill, King of Ulster, published in November 1599 a manifesto to the Catholics of the towns in Ireland, warning them of the great calamity and misery into which they were likely to fall by persevering in the damnable state in which they had been living.' If they did persevere, he told them, he should use means to despoil them of their goods and to dispossess them of their lands, because the towns were the means whereby wars were maintained against the exaltation of the Catholic faith. Contrariwise, if they joined him, he assured them upon his conscience that he would employ himself to the utmost of his power in their defence, as well as for the extirpation of heresy, the planting of the Catholic religion, the delivery of the country from infinite murders, wicked and detestable policies by which this kingdom was hitherto governed, nourished in obscurity and ignorance, maintained in barbarity and incivility.' Therefore he thought himself in conscience bound to use all means for the reduction of that poor afflicted country to the Catholic faith, which never could be brought to any good pass without either the destruction or the helping hand of the Catholics of the towns. He protested that he did not want their lands or goods, nor would he plant any in their places, if they would only join him. He declared upon his salvation' that he chiefly and principally fought for the Catholic faith to be planted throughout all their poor country, as well in cities as elsewhere, protesting that if he had to be King of Ireland without having the Catholic religion established, he would not the same accept.' He exhorted them to follow the example of that most Catholic country, France, whose subjects, for defect of Catholic faith, did go against their most natural king, and main

tained wars till he was constrained to profess the Catholic religion, duly submitting himself to the Apostolic See of Rome, to the which, doubtless, he might bring his country, the Catholics of the towns putting their helping hands with him to the same.' He thus concluded: As for myself, I protest before God and upon my salvation I have been proffered oftentimes such conditions as no man seeking his own private commodity could refuse; but I, seeking the public utility of my native country, will prosecute these wars until general religion be planted throughout all Ireland. So I rest, praying the Almighty to move your flinty hearts to prefer the commodity and profit of your country before your own private ends.' 1

In those times, when religious wars had been raging on the Continent, when the whole power of Spain was persistently employed to exterminate Protestants with fire and sword and every species of cruelty, it is not at all surprising that a Chief like O'Neill, leading such a wild, warlike life in Ulster, should persuade himself that he would be glorifying God and serving his country by destroying the Catholic inhabitants of the towns, that is, all the most civilised portions of the community, because they would not join him in robbing and killing the Protestants; but it is not a little surprising that a learned and liberal Catholic priest, writing in Dublin in the year of our Lord 1868, should give his deliberate sanction to this unchristian and barbarous policy. Yet Father Meehan, while publishing this document for the first time, writes: But no; not even the dint of that manifesto, with the ring of true steel in its every line, could strike a spark out of their hearts, for they were chalky.'

With such documents before them, however, and others of a similar kind, it was only natural that the English Government should act upon the same principle of intolerance, especially when they could urge the plea of State necessity. Still, they did not go the length of exterminating Catholics in the style with which O'Neill threatened his peaceable and industrious co-religionists in the towns. All they required was that the Catholics should cease to harbour their priests, and should attend the

1 Fate and Fortunes of the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel,' by Rev. P. C. Meehan, M.R.I.A., p. 34.