An Illustrated History of Ireland from AD 400 to 1800 Part 35

commission, which your lords.h.i.+p sent us over." Truly, the nation which had been so recently enlightened in so marvellous a manner, might have had a little patience with the people who could not so easily discern the new light; and, a.s.suredly, if the term "Church by law established"

be applicable to the Protestant religion in England, it is, if possible, still more applicable to the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, since the person delegated to found the new religion in that country, has himself stated it could only be established there by Act of Parliament.

The Parliament was summoned in 1536; but, as a remote preparation, the Lord Deputy made a "martial circuit" of Ireland, hoping thereby to overawe the native septs, and compel their submission to the royal will and pleasure. "This preparation being made," _i.e.,_ the "martial circuit"--I am quoting from Sir John Davies;[392] I request the reader's special attention to the statement--"he first propounded and pa.s.sed in Parliament these Lawes, which made the great alteration in the State Ecclesiastical, namely, the Act which declared King Henry VIII. to be Supreme Head of the Church of Ireland; the Act prohibiting Apeales to the Church of Rome; the Act for first fruites and twentieth part to be paid to the King; and lastly, the Act that did utterly abolish the usurped Authoritie of the Pope. Next, for the increase of the King's Revenew. By one Act he suppressed sundry Abbayes and Religious Houses, and by another Act resumed the Lands of the Absentees."

The royal process of conversion to the royal opinions, had at least the merits of simplicity. There is an old rhyme--one of those old rhymes which are often more effectual in moving the hearts of the mult.i.tude than the most eloquent sermons, and truer exponents of popular feeling than Acts of Parliament--which describes the fate of Forrest, the Franciscan friar, confessor of the King's only lawful wife and the consequences of his temerity in denying the King's supremacy:--

"Forrest, the fryar, That obstinate lyar, That wilfully will be dead; Incontinently The Gospel doth deny, The King to be supreme head."

There is a grand and simple irony in this not easily surpa.s.sed. Some very evident proofs had been given in England, that to deny the King's spiritual supremacy was "wilfully to be dead," although neither the King nor the Parliament had vouchsafed to inform the victims in what part of the Gospel the keys of the kingdom of heaven had been given to a temporal prince. Still, as I have observed, the royal process was extremely simple--if you believed, you were saved; if you doubted, you died.

With the example of Sir Thomas More[393] before their eyes, the Anglo-Norman n.o.bles and gentlemen, a.s.sembled in Parliament by the royal command, were easily persuaded to do the royal bidding. But the ecclesiastics were by no means so pliable. Every diocese had the privilege of sending two proctors to Parliament; and these proctors proved so serious an obstacle, that Lords Grey and Brabazon wrote to Cromwell, that they had prorogued the Parliament in consequence of the "forwardness and obstinacy of the proctors, of the clergy, and of the bishops and abbots;" and they suggest that "some means should be devised, whereby they should be brought to remember their duty better,"

or that "means may be found which shall put these proctors from a voice in Parliament."[394] The means were easily found--the proctors were forbidden to vote.[395] The Act was pa.s.sed. Every one who objected to it having been forbidden to vote, Henry's agents on the Continent proclaimed triumphantly that the Irish nation had renounced the supremacy of Rome. A triumph obtained at the expense of truth, is but poor compensation for the heavy retribution which shall a.s.suredly be demanded of those who have thus borne false witness against their neighbour. Men forget too often, in the headlong eagerness of controversy, that truth is eternal and immutable, and that no amount of self-deceit or successful deception of others can alter its purity and integrity in the eyes of the Eternal Verity.

The Irish Parliament, or, we should say more correctly, the men permitted to vote in Ireland according to royal directions, had already imitated their English brethren by declaring the marriage of Henry and Catherine of Arragon null and void, and limiting the succession to the crown to the children of Anna Boleyn. When this lady had fallen a victim to her husband's caprice, they attainted her and her posterity with equal facility. A modern historian has attempted to excuse Henry's repudiation of his lawful wife, on the ground of his sincere anxiety to prevent disputes about the succession.[396] But the King's subsequent conduct ought surely to have deterred any one from attempting so rash an apology. To doubt the royal supremacy, or the right of the lady, who for the time being held a place in Henry's affections, to royal honours, was an evidence of insincerity in devotion to himself which he could not easily pardon.

As it was now ascertained that the Irish people would not apostatize as a nation, an expedient was prepared for their utter extirpation. It would be impossible to believe that the human heart could be guilty of such cruelty, if we had not evidence of the fact in the State Papers. By this diabolical scheme it was arranged to till or carry away their cattle, and to destroy their corn while it was green. "The very living of the Irishry," observes the writer, "doth clearly consist in two things; and take away the same from them, and they are past power to recover, or yet to annoy any subject in Ireland. Take first from them their corn--burn and destroy the same; and then have their cattle and beasts, which shall be most hardest to come by, and yet, with guides and policy, they be often had and taken." Such was the arrangement; and it was from no want of inclination that it was not entirely carried out, and the "Irishry" starved to death in their own land.

The t.i.tle of King of Ireland had not as yet been given to English monarchs, but the ever-subservient Parliament of this reign granted Henry this addition to his privileges, such as it was. We have already seen the style in which the "supreme head of the Church" addressed the bishops whom he had appointed; we shall now give a specimen of their subserviency to their master, and the fas.h.i.+on in which they executed his commands, before returning to secular history.

Henry's letter to Dr. Browne is dated July 7th, 1537; the Bishop's reply is given on the 27th September, 1537. He commences by informing his most excellent Highness that he had received his most gracious letter on the 7th September, and that "it made him tremble in body for fear of incurring his Majesty's displeasure," which was doubtless the most truthful statement in his epistle. He mentions all his zeal and efforts against Popery, which, he adds, "is a thing not little rooted among the inhabitants here." He a.s.sures the King of his activity in securing the twentieth part and first-fruits for the royal use (what had been given to G.o.d was now given to Caesar), and states what, indeed, could not be denied, that he was the "first spiritual man who moved" for this to be done. He concludes with the fearful profanity of "desiring of G.o.d, that the ground, should open and swallow him up the hour or minute that he should declare the Gospel of Christ after any sort than he had done heretofore, in rebuking the Papistical power, _or in any other point concerning the advancement of his Grace's affairs_."

Such a tissue of profanity and absurdity was seldom penned; but men who could write and act thus were fitting instruments for a man, who made it a point of conscience to commit immoral crimes that he might preserve the succession; who kept his mistress in the same palace with his queen; and only went through the form of marriage when he found his real or pretended wishes about the same succession on the point of being realized in a manner that even he could not fail to see would scarcely be admitted as legal or legitimate by public opinion, whatever an obsequious Parliament might do. It is at least certain that such letters never were addressed by Catholic prelates to the Holy See, and that those who speak of its tyranny and priestcraft, and the absolute submission it requires from its subjects, would do well to remember the trite motto, _Audi alteram partem_, and to inquire whether a similar charge might not be made more justly against the founders of the Protestant Establishment.

Dr. Browne and the Lord Deputy now rivalled each other in their efforts to obtain the royal approbation, by destroying all that the Irish people held most sacred, determined to have as little cause as possible for "the trembling in body" which the King's displeasure would effect. They traversed the land from end to end, destroying cathedrals, plundering abbeys, and burning relics--all in the name of a religion which proclaimed liberty of conscience to wors.h.i.+p G.o.d according to individual conviction, as the great boon which it was to confer on the nation.

However full of painful interest these details may be, as details they belong to the province of the ecclesiastical historian. The Four Masters record the work of desecration in touching and mournful strains. They tell of the heresy which broke out in England, and graphically characterize it as "the effect of pride, vain-glory, avarice, and sensual desire." They mention how "the King and Council enacted new laws and statutes after their own will." They observe that all the property of the religious orders was seized for the King; and they conclude thus: "They also made archbishops and bishops for themselves; and although great was the persecution of the Roman emperors against the Church, it is not probable that so great a persecution as this ever came upon the world; so that it is impossible to tell or narrate its description, unless it should be told by him saw it."[397]

The era of religious persecution was thus inaugurated; and if Ireland had made no martyrs of the men who came to teach her the faith, she was not slow to give her best and n.o.blest sons as victims to the fury of those who attempted to deprive her of that priceless deposit. Under the year 1540, the Four Masters record the ma.s.sacre of the Guardian and friars of the Convent at Monaghan, for refusing to acknowledge the spiritual supremacy of the King. Cornelius, Bishop of Down, a Franciscan friar, and Father Thomas FitzGerald, a member of the n.o.ble family of the Geraldines, and a famous preacher, were both killed in the convent of that Order in Dublin. Father Dominic Lopez has given a detailed account of the sufferings of the religious orders in Ireland during the reign of Henry VIII., in a rare and valuable work, ent.i.tled, _Noticias Historicas de las tres florentissimas Provincias del celeste Ordem de la Ssma.

Trinidad_.[398] I shall give two instances from this history, as a sample of the fas.h.i.+on in which the new doctrine of the royal supremacy was propagated. In 1539 the Prior and religious of the Convent of Atharee were commanded to take the oath of supremacy, and to surrender their property to the crown. The Superior, Father Robert, at once a.s.sembled his spiritual children, and informed them of the royal mandate. Their resolution was unanimous; after the example of the early Christians, when threatened with martyrdom and spoliation by heathen emperors, they at once distributed their provisions, clothing, and any money they had in hand amongst the poor, and concealed the sacred vessels and ornaments, so that not so much as a single emblem of our redemption was left to be desecrated by men professing to believe that they had been redeemed by the cross of Christ. Father Robert was summoned thrice to recognize the new authority. Thrice he declined; declaring that "none had ever sought to propagate their religious tenets by the sword, except the pagan emperors in early ages, and Mahomet in later times. As for himself and his community, they were resolved that no violence should move them from the principles of truth: they recognized no head of the Catholic Church save the Vicar of Jesus Christ; and as for the King of England, they regarded him not even as a member of that holy Church, but as head of the synagogue of Satan." The conclusion of his reply was a signal for ma.s.sacre. An officer instantly struck off his head with one blow. As the prisons were already full of "recusants," the friars were placed in confinement in private houses, some were secretly murdered, and others were publicly hanged in the market-place. These events occurred on the 12th and 13th of February, 1539.

An almost similar tragedy was enacted in the Trinitarian Convent of Limerick, where the Prior was coadjutor to the Bishop of that city. He also a.s.sembled the brethren, exhorted them to perseverance, distributed their few poor possessions, and concealed the sacred vessels. On the feast of St. John Baptist, 24th June, in the year of grace 1539, he preached in his cathedral against the new heresy, and exhorted his flock to persevere in the faith. The emissaries of Government were afraid to attack him openly; but that evening they visited him at his private residence, and offered him his choice between death and apostacy. For all reply the venerable prelate knelt down, and exclaimed: "O Lord, on this morning I offered to Thee on the altar the unb.l.o.o.d.y sacrifice of the body of my Saviour; grant that I may now offer, to Thy greater honour and glory, the sacrifice of my own life." Then he turned towards a picture of the most holy Trinity, which was suspended in his room, and scarce had time to p.r.o.nounce the aspiration of his Order, "_Sancta Trinitas, unus Deus, miserere n.o.bis_," ere his head was severed from his body, and he entered upon the beatific vision of the Three in One, for Whom he had so gladly sacrificed his life.

The Protestant Archbishop, Dr. Browne, the Lord Chancellor, and some other members of the Council, set out on a "visitation" of the four counties of Carlow, Wexford, Waterford, and Tipperary, in which the church militant was for the nonce represented by the church military.

They transmitted an account of their expedition, and the novel fas.h.i.+on in which they attempted to propagate the Gospel, to England, on the 18th January, 1539. One brief extract must suffice as a specimen of their proceedings. "The day following we kept the sessions there [at Wexford].

There was put to execution four felons, accompanied with another, a friar, whom we commanded to be hanged in his habit, and so to remain upon the gallows for a mirror to all his brethren to live truly."[399]

There was One, whom from reverence I name not here, who said, when about to die, that, when "lifted up, He should draw all men unto Him."

Centuries have rolled by since those most blessed words were uttered, but they have been verified in the disciples as well as in the Master.

The "lifting up" of a friar upon the gallows, or of a bishop upon the block, has but served to draw men after them; and the reformations they failed to effect during their lives, by their preaching and example, have been accomplished after and because of their martyrdoms.

The reformers now began to upbraid each other with the very crimes of which they had accused the clergy in England. When mention is made of the immense sums of money which were obtained by the confiscation of religious houses at this period, it has been commonly and naturally supposed, that the religious were possessors of immense wealth, which they h.o.a.rded up for their own benefit; and although each person made a vow of poverty, it is thought that what was possessed collectively, was enjoyed individually. But this false impression arises (1) from a mistaken idea of monastic life, and (2) from a misapprehension as to the kind of property possessed by the religious.

A brief account of some of the property forfeited in Ireland, will explain this important matter. We do not find in any instance that religious communities had large funds of money. If they had extensive tracts of land, they were rather the property of the poor, who farmed them, than of the friars, who held them in trust. Any profit they produced made no addition to the fare or the clothing of the religious, for both fare and clothing were regulated by certain rules framed by the original founders, and which could not be altered. These rules invariably required the use of the plainest diet and of the coa.r.s.est habits. A considerable portion--indeed, by far the most considerable portion--of conventual wealth, consisted in the sacred vessels and ornaments. These had been bestowed on the monastic churches by benefactors, who considered that what was used in the service of G.o.d should be the best which man could offer. The monk was none the richer if he offered the sacrifice to the Eternal Majesty each morning in a chalice of gold, encrusted with the most precious jewels; but if it were right and fitting to present that chalice to G.o.d for the service of His Divine Majesty, who shall estimate the guilt of those who presumed to take the gift from Him to whom it had been given? We know how terrible was the judgment which came upon a heathen monarch who dared to use the vessels which had belonged to the Jewish Temple, and we may believe that a still more terrible judgment is prepared for those who desecrate Christian churches, and that it will be none the less sure, because, under the new dispensation of mercy, it comes less swiftly.

All the gold and silver plate, jewels, ornaments, lead, bells, &c., were reserved by special command for the King's use.[400] The church-lands were sold to the highest bidder, or bestowed as a reward on those who had helped to enrich the royal coffers by sacrilege. Amongst the records of the sums thus obtained, we find 326 2s. 11d., the price of divers pieces of gold and silver, of precious stones, silver ornaments, &c.; also 20, the price of 1,000 lbs. of wax. The sum of 1,710 2s. was realized from the sale of sacred vessels belonging to thirty-nine monasteries. The profits on the spoliation of St. Mary's, Dublin, realized 385. The destruction of the Collegiate Church of St. Patrick must have procured an enormous profit, as we find that Cromwell received 60 for his pains in effecting the same. It should also be remembered that the value of a penny then was equal to the value of a s.h.i.+lling now, so that we should multiply these sums at least by ten to obtain an approximate idea of the extent of this wholesale robbery.

The spoilers now began to quarrel over the spoils. The most active or the most favoured received the largest share; and Dr. Browne grumbled loudly at not obtaining all he asked for. But we have not s.p.a.ce to pursue the disedifying history of their quarrels. The next step was to accuse each other. In the report of the Commissioners appointed in 1538 to examine into the state of the country, we find complaints made of the exaction of undue fees, extortions for baptisms and marriages, &c. They also (though this was not made an accusation by the Commissioners) received the fruits of benefices in which they did not officiate, and they were accused of taking wives and dispensing with the sacrament of matrimony. The King, whatever personal views he might have on this subject, expected his clergy to live virtuously; and in 1542 he wrote to the Lord Deputy, requiring an Act to be pa.s.sed "for the continency of the clergy," and some "reasonable plan to be devised for the avoiding of sin." However, neither the Act nor the reasonable plan appear to have succeeded. In 1545, Dr. Browne writes: "Here reigneth insatiable ambition; here reigneth continually coigne and livery, and callid extortion." Five years later, Sir Anthony St. Leger, after piteous complaints of the decay of piety and the increase of immorality, epitomizes the state of the country thus: "I never saw the land so far out of good order."[401] Pages might be filled with such details; but the subject shall be dismissed with a brief notice of the three props of the Reformation and the King's supremacy in Ireland. These were Dr.

Browne of Dublin, Dr. Staples of Meath, and Dr. Bale of Ossory. The latter writing of the former in 1553, excuses the corruption of his own reformed clergy, by stating that "they would at no hand obey; alleging for their vain and idle excuse, the lewd example of the Archbishop of Dublin, who was always slack in things pertaining to G.o.d's glory." He calls him "an epicurious archbishop, a brockish swine, and a dissembling proselyte," and accuses him in plain terms of "drunkenness and gluttony." Dr. Browne accuses Dr. Staples of having preached in such a manner, "as I think the three-mouthed Cerberus of h.e.l.l could not have uttered it more viperously." And Dr. Mant, the Protestant panegyrist of the Reformation and the Reformers, admits that Dr. Bale was guilty of "uncommon warmth of temperament"--a polite appellation for a most violent temper; and of "unbecoming coa.r.s.eness"--a delicate definement of a profligate life. His antecedents were not very creditable. After flying from his convent in England, he was imprisoned for preaching sedition in York and London. He obtained his release by professing conformity to the new creed. He eventually retired to Canterbury, after his expulsion from Kilkenny by the Catholics, and there he died, in 1563.

[Ill.u.s.tration: SCULPTURES AT DEVENISH.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: BOSS ISLAND.]

FOOTNOTES:

[380] _Persecution_.--Smith's _Ireland Hist. and Statis_. vol. i. p.

327.

[381] _Doom_.--See _The Earls of Kildare_, vol. i. p. 106, for Wolsey's reasons for not removing him from the Viceroyalty, notwithstanding his dislike.

[382] _Ally_.--He was charged with having written a letter to O'Carroll of Ely, in which he advised him to keep peace with the Pale until a Deputy should come over, and then to make war on the English. The object of this advice is not very clear.

[383] _Salus Populi_.--There is a copy of this book in MS. in the British Museum. The name of the author is not known.

[384] _Letter_.--The deposition accusing Kildare is printed in the "State Papers," part iii. p. 45. The following is an extract from the translation which it gives of his letter to O'Carroll. The original was written in Irish: "Desiring you to kepe good peas to English men tyll an English Deputie come there; and when any English Deputie shall come thydder, doo your beste to make warre upon English men there, except suche as bee towardes mee, whom you know well your silf."

[385] _Pierse Butler_.--Called by the Irish, Red Pierse. Leland gives a curious story about him. He was at war with MacGillapatrick, who sent an amba.s.sador to Henry VIII. to complain of the Earl's proceedings. The messenger met the English King as he was about to enter the royal chapel, and addressed him thus: "Stop, Sir King! my master, Gillapatrick, has sent me to thee to say, that if thou wilt not punish the Red Earl he will make war on thee." Pierse resigned his t.i.tle in favour of Sir Thomas Boleyn, in 1527, and was created Earl of Ossory; but after the death of the former he again took up the old t.i.tle, and resigned the new.

[386] _Spared._--It is quite evident from the letter of the Council to Henry VIII. (State Papers, ciii.), that a promise was made. Henry admits it, and regrets it in his letter to Skeffington (S.P. cvi.): "The doyng whereof [FitzGerald's capture], albeit we accept it thankfully, yet, if he had been apprehended after such sorte as was convenable to his deservynges, the same had been muche more thankfull and better to our contentacion."

[387] _Already_.--Mant describes him as a man "whose mind was happily freed from the thraldom of Popery," before his appointment.--_History of the Church of Ireland_, vol. i. p. 111.

[388] _Houses_.--Lingard, vol. vi. p. 203.

[389] _Charges_.--Mr. Froude has adopted this line with considerable ability, in his _History of England_. He has collected certain statements, which he finds in the books of the Consistory Courts, and gives details from these cases which certainly must "shock his readers"

considerably, as he expects. He leaves it to be implied that, as a rule, ecclesiastics lived in open immorality. He gives names and facts concerning the punishment of priests for vicious lives (_History of England_, vol. i. pp. 178-180); and a.s.serts that their offences were punished lightly, while another measure was dealt out to seculars. He might as well select the cases of scandal given by Protestant clergymen in modern times from the law books, and hold them up as specimens of the lives of all their brethren. The cases were exceptions; and though they do prove, what is generally admitted, that the moral condition of the clergy was not all that could be desired in individual cases, they also prove that such cases were exceptional, and that they were condemned by the Church, or they would not have been punished. With regard to the punishment, we can scarcely call it a light penance for a _priest_ to be compelled to go round the church barefoot, to kneel at each altar and recite certain prayers, and this while High Ma.s.s was singing. It was a moral disgrace, and keener than a corporal punishment. The writer also evidently misunderstands the Catholic doctrine of absolution, when he says that a fine of six-and-eightpence was held sufficient penalty for a mortal sin.

[390] _Ancestors_.--See the _Phoenix_, a collection of valuable papers, published in London, 1707; and the _Harleian Miscellany_, &c.

[391] _Rome_.--This was the invariable practice of the Irish Church. It will be remembered how letters and expostulations had been sent to the Holy See in regard to the temporal oppressions of the English settlers.

[392] _Davies.--Cause why Ireland was never Subdued_.--Thorn's Reprints, vol. i. p. 694.

[393] _More_.-Sir Thomas More's son-in-law, Roper, gives the following account of his condemnation: "Mr. Rich, pretending friendly talk with him, among other things of a set course, said this unto him: 'Admit there were, sir, an Act of Parliament that the realm should take me for king; would not you, Master More, take me for King?' 'Yes, sir,' quoth Sir Thomas More, 'that I would.' 'I put the case further,' quoth Mr.

Rich, 'that there were an Act of Parliament that all the realm should take me for Pope; would not you then, Master More, take me for Pope?'

'For answer, sir,' quoth Sir Thomas More, 'to your first case, the Parliament may well, Master Rich, meddle with the state of temporal princes; but to make answer to your other case, I will put you this case. Suppose the Parliament should make a law that G.o.d should not be G.o.d, would you then, Master Rich, say that G.o.d were not G.o.d?' 'No, sir,'

quoth he, 'that I would not, sith no Parliament may make any such law.'

'No more,' quoth Sir Thomas More, 'could the Parliament make the King supreme head of the Church.' Upon whose only report was Sir Thomas indicted for high treason on the statute to deny the King to be supreme head of the Church, into which indictment were put these heinous words--maliciously, traitorously, and diabolically."

[394] _Parliament_.--State Papers, vol. ii. p. 437.

[395] _Vote_.--Irish Statutes, 28th Henry VIII. c. xii.

[396] _Succession_.--Froude, vol. i. p. 94. He also quotes Hall to the effect that "all indifferent and discreet persons judged that it was right and necessary." Persons who were "indifferent" enough to think that any reason could make a sin necessary, or "discreet" enough to mind losing their heads or their property, were generally of that opinion.

But Henry's difficulties in divorcing his wife are a matter of history.

[397] _Saw it_,--Four Masters, vol. v. p. 1445.

[398] _Trinidad_.--Madrid, 1714.