Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

Although no analogous facts, how strong soever, could enhance the cogency of the inferences deducible from this incident, two are given in the annexed note.*

There is one point of view in which this affair of the Little Belt may be regarded, that ought not to be overlooked. In the present state of printing, and the open, unreserved communication between nations, flagrant fraud and falsehood can hardly flatter themselves to escape detection. This consideration must have powerful operation to circumscribe and restrain them, and was comparatively inoperative in former times, when, of course, the inducements to fraud and perjury were incomparably greater than they are at present.

The application remains, and can hardly fail to have been anticipated by the reader. The slenderness of the temptation to perjury, and the absolute certainty of detection, did not deter from it in this case. What a lesson on history generally-but more especially on Irish history! What dependence, under this view of the materials from which history is formed, can be placed on the accounts of the affairs of Ireland, which are wholly ex parte-where the temptations to perjury were so enormous, (being nothing less than the fee simple of millions of acres,) where detection was so difficult, and where numberless palpable perjuries are on record?

In such cases of discrepancy as that of the President and Little Belt, (and similar ones are to be found on almost every topic of importance,) how can even a cotemporary historian, with very considerable advantages, decide between the contradictory accounts? He must have been an eye witness of few of the events he narrates. For all the rest he must necessarily depend on the accounts of others. He must either rely on one side or the other, or blend the two accounts together. In either case, error appears, as already observed, absolutely inevitable. And even of those events in which the writer has himself been a party, he must derive much of his information from others. An officer, who has been engaged in a battle, can have had but a limited view of the passing events. Armies sometimes occupy miles square; and therefore small is the portion that can be accurately surveyed by any individual.

If this view be correct, as I think can hardly be disputed, even so far as respects history written with a sincere regard to truth, and a

*Two cis-Atlantic cases, of recent discussion, afford abundant matter for reflexion. They are, the battle of Bunker's Hill, and the capture of major Andre. The opinions that have heretofore universally prevailed, respecting the conduct of general Putnam in the former, and on the character and motives of the captors of the unfortunate major, have been of late brought into controversy, and debated with great zeal and ardour. On the latter question, the opinion, so honourable to the parties, as well as to their country, whereby the procedure is rendered so invaluable and beneficial to the world in point of example, has been unanimously confirmed by the public. But with respect to general Putnam, the question appears to be adhuc sub judice, after having slept for above forty years. So much for history, even under its most favourable aspect! What must it be under its worst?

fixed and unalterable determination not to swerve, intentionally, from her luminous path, how deplorable must be the case with histories, of which the original authors were under the influence of all the hideous passions that deform and degrade human nature, and assimilate men to demons-dire insatiable rancour, national hostility, a ravenous thirst for the blood* and estatest of the natives, and bigotry of the blindest and most malignant character, and where the modern au

* However horrible it may appear, I shall satisfactorily prove in the sequel from Carte, Leland and Warner, that the total extirpation of the Roman Catholics of Ireland was contemplated by the ruling party in England and Ireland for a considerable time after the commencement of the insurrection of 1641.

†The confiscation of the whole island, except such portion as was in the possession of the protestants and presbyterians, shall be proved to have been another favourite project of that period..

Thank Heaven, we live in an enlightened age, whose liberality on the subject of differences in religious opinions, renders it difficult to conceive the deplorable bigotry and rancorous spirit of intolerance, that prevailed in that dark and persecuting era, the seventeenth century. Each denomination of Christians regarded its own opinions as infallible, and all others as heretical and damnable: and, next to the right of worshipping God as they thought proper, they prized the right to control, restrain, and persecute all who dared to differ from them. All abhorred toleration as the greatest abomination; and instances are to be found, of individuals and bodies of men exculpating themselves from the charge of being friendly to it, as if it were some foul crime. The solemn league and covenant, which for a time, was most tyrannically enforced on all classes, expressly avowed its object to be "the EXTIRPATION of Popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of Godliness." Popery had originally an exclusive monopoly of the detestation of the Puritans; but when they had succeeded in suppressing it, the established religion, from its supposed affinity to Popery, became almost equally odious to them; and, whenever they had the power, was prohibited under heavy penalties, not quite so severe, however, as those against Popery. "Heresy, schism, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of Godliness," embraced every religious opinion or practice, which in the slightest degree varied from the Westminster Confession of Faith. This was the standard of perfection, by which the ruling powers, for a season, measured rectitude or depravity of faith and conduct. It was the true theological and intellectual bed of Procrustes, whereby redundancies of opinion were to be lopped off, and deficiencies to be supplied. He who could not command or feign assent to the most minute particulars of this confession, was branded as a "delinquent," no matter how orthodox he might be in general. The solemnization of Christmas, and various ceremonies, wholly indifferent in themselves, were interdicted, and made punishable. The use of the book of common prayer was likewise forbidden, under heavy penalties.

These statements appear so incredible, that I deem it necessary to

thors are servile copyists, who implicitly follow in the beaten and foul path of their predecessors!

remove all doubt on the subject by authorities from which no appeal will lie.

"Dec. 11, 1640-The humble petition of many of his majesty's subjects in and about the city of London, and several counties of the kingdom, showeth,

"That whereas the government of archbishops, lord bishops, deans, and arch deacons, &c: with their courts and ministrations in them, have proved prejudicial and very dangerous both to the church and commonwealth; they themselves having formerly held, that they have their jurisdiction or authority of human authority; till of these later times being further pressed about the unlawfulness, that they have claimed their calling immediately from the Lord Jesus Christ, which is against the laws of this kingdom, and derogatory to his majesty and his state royal.

"We therefore most humbly pray and beseech this honourable assembly, the premises considered, that the said government with all its dependencies, roots, and branches, may be abolished, and all laws in their behalf made void, and the government according to God's word may be rightly placed amongst us."5

"1643, Oct. 16. Ordered, That such members of the House, as have not yet taken the Solemn League and Covenant, do take and subscribe the same on Thursday next, which day is appointed a peremptory day for the taking and subscribing the same by such mem

bers."

996

"1645, May 8. Ordered, That the company of merchant adventurers do send the Covenant to all of their company, at home and abroad, and return the names of such as shall refuse to take it."

"1645-6, January 15. A petition from the lord mayor, aldermen, and common council of London, to the House of Peers, desiring the speedy settling of church government, according to the Covenant; and "That no toleration be granted of Popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, or any thing contrary to sound doctrine, and that all private meetings, contrary to the Covenant, may be restrained."s

"1644, August 9. Ordered, That Mr. White do give order for the public burning of one Williams his books, intituled, &c. concerning the tolerating of all sects of Christians."9

"Concerning religion, we have expressed the desires of the kingdom of Scotland, and given a testimony against toleration."10

1646. April 15. This day there was in parliament, a "debate touching persons not to be admitted to the sacrament."11

"1646, March 1. Both Houses gave an allowance to the earl of Chesterfield, with an intimation that he do not entertain malignant preachers in his house, nor use the book of common prayer.” "1647, October 16.

6 Rushworth, IV. 93.
8 Whitelock, 188.
"Whitelock, 142.

9912

Debate touching religion, and voted, That the

[blocks in formation]

Almost all the writers of Irish history, down to Sir John Temple, were under the influence often of the whole, but never free from the

indulgence as to tender consciences shall not extend to tolerate the common prayer."

4913

"Voted that such members as have not taken the covenant take it next fast day, or be suspended the house."14

"1647, November 23. Debate upon the ordinance against blasphemies and heresies, and the punishment voted to be death."15

1646, October 13. The commons voted, that "The liberty of conscience granted shall extend to none that shall preach, print, or publish any thing contrary to the first fifteen of the thirty-nine articles, except the eighth."16

"1647, December 20. Referred to a committee, to examine what delinquent ministers did preach, or read the book of common prayer, and to silence them.”17

The above parliamentary proceedings are directed against protestants. I now annex others of a similar character, against Roman Catholics. Some of them are, it is true, of a very trivial nature-but as "straws show the direction of the wind," even these may be worth attention.

Extract from a council-table order, against hearing mass at ambassadors' houses, at White-Hall, the tenth of March, 1629.

"For so much as concerneth the repair to the houses of foreign ambassadors, at the time of mass, his majesty thinks fit, that some messengers of the chamber, or other officers or persons fit for that service, shall be appointed to watch all the several passages to their houses, and, without entering into the said houses, or infringing the freedoms and privileges belonging unto them, observe such persons as go thither; but at their coming from thence, they are to apprehend them, and bring them to the board; and such as they cannot apprehend, to bring their names.

"Lastly, that it is his majesty's express pleasure that the like diligence be used for the apprehending of all such as repair to mass in prisons, or other places."18

A Roman Catholic in England was liable to a penalty of twenty pounds a month, (and, observe, there were thirteen months in the legal year,) if he did not attend public worship, in one of the established churches, on Sundays. This extravagant and ruinous penalty which was imposed under Elizabeth, was not deemed enough to satisfy the rapacity of the ruling party under James I.; and accordingly an act was passed, in the third year of his reign, authorizing the king to seize two-thirds of the estates of the Roman Catholics, in lieu of the penalty!!!! 19

But wicked as was this law, there was one that exceeded it. A penalty of ten pounds a month was imposed on those who "relieved or harboured" persons who did not attend worship in some established church: and to this penalty every man or woman was liable, even for "maintaining, retaining, relieving, keeping, or harbouring his 13 Whitelock, 274. 14 Idem, 232. 15 Whitelock, 228. 16 Idem, 274. 18 Cabala, 210.

17 Whitelock, 284.

19 Pickering, VII. 154.

goadings of some, of those dire passions. They were the historians of their own exploits, and pursued the horrible system of policy which

or her father or mother," if that father or mother were within the purview of the statute. But, as "a special grace and favour," there was a clause, exempting from the penalty those whose parents were paupers, or destitute of "sufficient maintenance."

"Provided nevertheless, That this act shall not in any wise extend to punish, or impeach, any person or persons, FOR MAINTAINING, RETAINING, RELIEVING, KEEPING, OR HARBOURING HIS, HER, OR THEIR FATHER OR MOTHER! wanting, without fraud or covin, other habitation, or sufficient maintenance!!! or the ward of any such person, or any person that shall be committed by authority to the custody of any by whom they shall be so relieved, maintained or kept; any thing in this act contained to the contrary notwithstanding."30

This provision, however, ought not to be supposed to arise from liberality or justice, which in this age were set wholly at defiance. It proceeded from a sordid fear, lest the poor parents should become burdensome to the parish.

Who can reflect on this law, without a holy abhorrence of the spirit by which it was dictated, and the men by whom it was enacted? The decalogue and the laws and customs of all the savage as well as civilized world, with the single exception, at that period, of England, order us to honour our fathers and mothers: but in that wretched and besotted age, a man was liable to pay one hundred and thirty pounds sterling per annum, for even "relieving or harbouring his father or mother," if they were so conscientiously scrupulous as not to abandon the religion in which they were educated, and conform to a religion they abhorred!

The nurse who suckled James, the second son of Charles I. was a Roman Catholic-and such was the prying, pimping spirit of the times, and such the utter destitution of a single spark of Christian charity or toleration, that it caused great disturbance throughout London, and it was regarded as dangerous to allow her to perform her functions for the royal scion. She was teased and harassed to take the oath of allegiance, and doubtless, although my author is silent on the subject, the oath of supremacy, which always in the tender to Roman Catholics of those days, went pari passu. As she refused, they were about to dismiss her, lest, perhaps, she might infect the young prince with the abominations of popery! for it is difficult to assign, any other reason for the contemptible proceeding. Lord Cottington in a letter to lord Strafford gives a full account of the affair. "Our joy for the birth of a young Duke of York, is much watered by the sickness of the babe; yet at this instant he is better. The nurse is a Roman Catholic, to whom Sir John Tunstone offered the oath of allegiance, and she refused it; whereupon there grew a great noise about it in the town and Court; and the queen afflicted herself with extreme passion upon knowledge of a resolution to change the woman. Yet, after much tampering with the nurse to convert her, she was let alone, to quiet the queen. Nevertheless this

20 Pickering, VII. 161.

« ForrigeFortsæt »