2

land. The former assertion may be dismissed with the feeling which arises when we are told such fables as that the Gunpowder Plot was a "State trick of Cecil," that there were no massacres in 1641, and that the rebellion of 1798 was wantonly provoked for the purpose of carrying the Legislative Union. The latter is equally unfounded. Probably there never was a Government which showed such unwillingness to confiscate the possessions of those who rebelled against it as the English Government in Ireland. Such was its forbearance to exercise its just rights, that insurrection was almost certain to be followed by restoration. Rebellion was often a successful policy. "What, thou fool," said an Irish chief to one whom he found slow to join in an insurrection, "thou shalt be the more esteemed for it. What hadst thou if thy father had not done so?" The editor of O'Sullivan's history mentions one chief who received from Elizabeth "five general pardons at different times for treason "." Of the seventy-two chiefs and captains who rose in the general insurrection, 1595-1603, can one be mentioned whose lands were confiscated? not the whole of Ulster restored to the O'Neills, the O'Donnells, the O'Kanes, the O'Doghertys, etc., who had joined in the same rebellion? On the accession of James in 1603, he published a general Act of indemnity and oblivion, extinguishing all offences against the Crown, and granted special charters of pardon to "many thousands" of those who had been engaged in the late insurrection.1 "The greatest latitude of assertion," says the Rev. Dr. O'Conor, "with the least shadow of proof is observable in almost all modern writers who have meddled with Irish history."

1 Lecky, ii., p. 99.

Was

2 Curry, one of the chief authorities of the school to which Mr. Lecky belongs makes this statement. Review of the Civil Wars, etc., i.,

3 Hist. Catholicæ Compendium, p. 89, note.

p. 79.

CHAPTER IV.

HOSTILITY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS, CLERGY AND LAWYERS TO PROTESTANT KINGS DURING THE REIGNS OF ELIZABETH, JAMES I. AND CHARLES I.

If we may trust the lessons of history, a complete conquest, such as that of Elizabeth, leaves but little rancour and bad blood behind it. Like a convulsion of nature, it appears to weaken the remembrance of the past and to direct the minds of the conquered to the hopes of a future. A few years after the Norman conquest we find the native English crowding to the standard of William Rufus, and demanding to be led against some of his nobles who had risen in insurrection. The subjugation of Celtic Gaul occupied a period of nine years of general war, and cost a million of lives. But once the conquest was achieved, Gaul accepted her destiny, and, as a French historian expresses it, laboured to transform herself and to become Roman. Within a marvellously short period her inhabitants adopted the language and civilisation of Rome, dedicated temples and altars to the Emperors and City, and shared in the glories of the empire. Other examples: readily suggest themselves; as that of Persia after its. conquest by Alexander the Great; and in our own times, the loyal submission of the warlike Sikhs and their

1 Amédée Thierry.

2 As early as 12 B.C. an altar, dedicated to the city and Augustus, was raised near Lyons by the sixty peoples of Gallia Comata. Juvenal alludes to this altar in his first Satire.

land. The former assertion may be dismissed with the feeling which arises when we are told such fables as that the Gunpowder Plot was a "State trick of Cecil," that there were no massacres in 1641, and that the rebellion of 1798 was wantonly provoked for the purpose of carrying the Legislative Union. The latter is equally unfounded. Probably there never was a Government which showed such unwillingness to confiscate the possessions of those who rebelled against it as the English Government in Ireland. Such was its forbearance to exercise its just rights, that insurrection was almost certain to be followed by restoration. Rebellion was often a successful policy. What, thou fool," said an Irish chief to one whom he found slow to join in an insurrection, "thou shalt be the more esteemed for it. What hadst thou if thy father had not done so?" The editor of O'Sullivan's history mentions one chief who received from Elizabeth "five general pardons at different times for treason ". Of the seventy-two chiefs and captains who rose in the general insurrection, 1595-1603, can one be mentioned whose lands were confiscated? not the whole of Ulster restored to the O'Neills, the O'Donnells, the O'Kanes, the O'Doghertys, etc., who had joined in the same rebellion? On the accession of James in 1603, he published a general Act of indemnity and oblivion, extinguishing all offences against the Crown, and granted special charters of pardon to "many thousands" of those who had been engaged in the late insurrection.* "The greatest latitude of assertion," says the Rev. Dr. O'Conor, "with the least shadow of proof is observable in almost all modern writers who have meddled with Irish history."

Was

2 Curry, one of the chief authorities of the school to which Mr. Lecky belongs makes this statement. Review of the Civil Wars, etc., i., p. 79. 3 Hist. Catholica Compendium, p. 89, note.

4 Preamble to the first Irish Statute passed in the reign of James. II. James I., c. 1.

CHAPTER IV.

HOSTILITY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS, CLERGY AND LAWYERS TO PROTESTANT KINGS DURING THE REIGNS OF ELIZABETH, JAMES I. AND CHARLES I.

IF we may trust the lessons of history, a complete conquest, such as that of Elizabeth, leaves but little rancour and bad blood behind it. Like a convulsion of nature, it appears to weaken the remembrance of the past and to direct the minds of the conquered to the hopes of a future. A few years after the Norman conquest we find the native English crowding to the standard of William Rufus, and demanding to be led against some of his nobles who had risen in insurrection. The subjugation of Celtic Gaul occupied a period of nine years of general war, and cost a million of lives. But once the conquest was achieved, Gaul accepted her destiny, and, as a French historian 1 expresses it, laboured to transform herself and to become Roman. Within a marvellously short period her inhabitants adopted the language and civilisation of Rome, dedicated temples and altars to the Emperors and City, and shared in the glories of the empire. Other examples: readily suggest themselves; as that of Persia after its. conquest by Alexander the Great; and in our own times, the loyal submission of the warlike Sikhs and their

1 Amédée Thierry.

2 As early as 12 B.C. an altar, dedicated to the city and Augustus, was raised near Lyons by the sixty peoples of Gallia Comata. Juvenal alludes to this altar in his first Satire.

land. The former assertion may be dismissed with the feeling which arises when we are told such fables as that the Gunpowder Plot was a "State trick of Cecil," that there were no massacres in 1641, and that the rebellion of 1798 was wantonly provoked for the purpose of carrying the Legislative Union. The latter is equally unfounded. Probably there never was a Government which showed such unwillingness to confiscate the possessions of those who rebelled against it as the English Government in Ireland. Such was its forbearance to exercise its just rights, that insurrection was almost certain to be followed by restoration. Rebellion was often a successful policy. "What, thou fool," said an Irish chief to one whom he found slow to join in an insurrection, "thou shalt be the more esteemed for it. What hadst thou if thy father had not done so?" The editor of O'Sullivan's history mentions one chief who received from Elizabeth "five general pardons at different times for treason ". 8 Of the seventy-two chiefs and captains who rose in the general insurrection, 1595-1603, can one be mentioned whose lands were confiscated? Was not the whole of Ulster restored to the O'Neills, the O'Donnells, the O'Kanes, the O'Doghertys, etc., who had joined in the same rebellion? On the accession of James in 1603, he published a general Act of indemnity and oblivion, extinguishing all offences against the Crown, and granted special charters of pardon to "many thousands" of those who had been engaged in the late insurrection.* "The greatest latitude of assertion," says the Rev. Dr. O'Conor, "with the least shadow of proof is observable in almost all modern writers who have meddled with Irish history."

1 Lecky, ii., p. 99.

2 Curry, one of the chief authorities of the school to which Mr. Lecky belongs makes this statement. Review of the Civil Wars, etc., i., p. 79. 3 Hist. Catholicæ Compendium, p. 89, note.

4 Preamble to the first Irish Statute passed in the reign of James. II. James I., c. 1.