a swarm of locusts, consuming its very substance, and blackening with their noxious presence its fair fields. There are many who, careless of information, are accustomed to consider the oft told tale of legislative wrong, on the part of England towards Ireland, either as purely fabulous or grossly exaggerated, and calculated merely to form material for the inflammatory popular harangues of designing demagogues. It is no compliment to the intelligence of any one to be uninformed on this subject. The scholar, the moralist, the philanthropist, should blush to own that these matters of history are not familiar to him. While to us, who may be considered the trustees of freedom for the benefit of suffering humanity, ignorance on this point is the severest reflection on the fitness we possess for the high trust we enjoy. Yet these sufferings at which we have hinted, and these cruel laws of which we complain, are far from being the mere exaggerations of passion. They are matters of solemn and awful fact. They live and speak from the page of the past, and tell the sad tale of human inconsistency, which seeks the world for objects of public compassion and protection, and dooms to hopeless penury and cruel persecution, the friend and brother of our own home. Strange as it may seem, we have but to turn to the records of the English Parliament, to see, on one page, the self-lauded efforts of that body for the suppression of the slave trade, and, on another, the permission to kill an Irishman without other punishment than that inflicted for an ordinary misdemeanor.

We have already alluded to the strong evidence of devotion which the people of Ireland had afforded to the crown of England. The proofs of the sincerity of this feeling are not confined to one period of time. When the immense armament of Napoleon hung around the kingdom of Great Britain, like its own ocean encircling it on every side, the armies of England were recruited from the hardy and valiant population of Ireland, and the field of Waterloo, a short time afterwards, was also whitened with their bones and watered with their blood.

We are aware that it has been the custom of some to seek to excuse the enactment of severe and arbitrary rule in Ireland, by a reference to the particular form of religion, most dear to the large proportion of the population of that country. The effort is made to induce the belief that the profession of this religion is inconsistent with the duties which men

owe to government. If the fact were so, it would present a grave and momentous question; but, until the fact is so proved, we shall give it no attention, much less admit it to be a justification, either in the sight of God or man, for the monstrous injustice which, for ages, has been continued towards Ireland. It is said that the principles of the Roman Catholic worship are such as to weaken the allegiance which should bind the subject to the ruler, and that the relaxation of the penal laws now of force, would be attended with all the horrors of civil war. To answer this, is scarce a task. Look at Catholic France, or any government in Europe where the Church of Rome is the religious guide of the people, and say whether the obedience of the subject is less strong than in England? Point to the principle in the Roman Catholic Church that inculcates disobedience in the subject, or makes the safety of the ruler less certain when surrounded by his Catholic, than his Protestant subjects? It is not so. We invite not polemical discussion, but we appeal to the facts to which we have alluded, as strong confirmation of the denial we make. But we need not go out of England, to substantiate the truth of this position. The Catholic Emancipation Bill, relaxed something of the severity of the "iron rule," and, to some extent, the Catholic now shares with the Protestant the responsible duties of legislation. Is the throne of England less secure? Or is the worth and intelligence of the English Parliament compromised by the accession of those who have adorned the temples of literature and science, and illustrated by their virtue and talent the reform for which they are contending?

It doubtless is true, that from the time of Henry VIII., a contest has been continued for the religious character of the people of England and Ireland. But where is the instance in which the temporal power of the church has been interposed to elevate or depose one of the many princes who, since that period, have worn the crown? If opposition to the illegal conduct of that monarch be urged, and if that opposition had been instigated by the head of the church, was it not an opposition justified by the laws of England itself? The principle of the right to private property was then well understood, and the law of the land promised its support to all who had their rights in this particular invaded. The open violation of all law, and all rights sanctioned by law, during the reign of Henry, the destruction of all monasteries,

the confiscation of the property belonging to them, the expulsion from their homes of crowds of poor and aged priests, was surely enough to justify even the most vigorous opposition, that the united power of those who were injured could devise. It is not because the tyrant may be a king, that therefore he can do no wrong. It is not because a timid majority, and corrupt ministers, would find means to make a Parliament, and a portion of the people submissive to a sway which defied the wrath of God, and spurned the respect of man, that the few who were bold enough to ask for their own, should be branded as traitors, or stigmatized as the violators of law, order and propriety.*

And so if, in the perusal of the history of this people, we are struck with the disfranchisement which by law was attached to all who professed a particular form of worship, shall we wonder that the same page will occasionally inform us, how to that people forbearance would seem to have its limit, and human nature strongly oppressed, would rise in support of the last expiring spark of human rights? It is not because they were Catholics, that such conduct must be looked for. It is to the first principles of human conduct, implanted in us, that we are to trace this spirit of resistance, which has blazed up, in long intervals, as if it were only to illuminate to posterity, the dark deeds and suffering of that generation. But, says a sensible and well-informed writer:

"These calumnies had their full and fatal operation, as an argument in urging the necessity of a legislative union: an argument at once refuted by reference even to the modern events of 1782, and to the unexampled moderation, forbearance and loyalty of the Irish nation, who sought only a full participation in the British Constitution, though the moral and physical powers of that ardent people, were then consolidated by their patriotism, and rendered irresistible by their numbers, their discipline and their energy. At that awful crisis of the British empire, the Irish were an armed and triumphant people; England a defeated and trembling nation. Ireland was in the bloom of energy and vigor; England on the couch of discomfiture and malady. And if the spirit of indigenous disaffection, so falsely imputed to the Irish nation, had in reality existed, she had then full scope, and ample power, to pursue and effect all its disposition for an eternal separation.Ӡ

But, if we were to admit the plea, another question would still arise that the advocates of British rule might find equal

ly difficult to answer. No one will deny that the prohibitory measures of England, if such were proved necessary, in the matter of the Catholic religion, should not have been carried beyond the bounds of necessity and propriety. No one will say, that because danger might be apprehended from certain religious tenets, that a code of law should be adopted, the severity of which far exceeded any justifiable necessity. What shall be said to the prohibition of marriage, of education, of commerce? What shall be said to the disfranchisement of millions of subjects,-to the unbridled license given to armies of cruel and bigotted officers, to shed blood until they would prove sick with their butchery ;-to the proposition to exterminate the Catholic inhabitants of Ireland, and when this was considered impracticable, modified so as to confiscate all the lands held by them,-to the spies who were paid to poison the pure air of the country with their presence;--to the robberies,-to the false and cruel policy of exciting the jealousy of the people, and fomenting disputes in every quarter of the land, that these jealousies and disputes should afford a pretext for the interference of the crown?-to the thousand other crimes which are told with all the awful horrors of truth, and even at this distance shock him who idly reads the narrative! Were these necessary for the support of the British government? Did the stability of that empire not only require that man, "with all his imperfections on his head," should be set up as the supreme judge between his fellow man and his God, but that all the charities of life, every thing which in religion we are taught to cherish, should be also cast aside, and the government of man be made the most terrible curse that could befall an unhappy people?

Let us for a moment bring together some of these measures of government, and ask the candid judgment of the present generation. It is not necessary that any comment should be made. The enactments will speak for themselves. Well has it been said, that these made "a code, which would have dishonored even the sanguinary pen of Draco, which had inflicted every pain and penalty, every restriction and oppression, under which a people could linger out a miserable existence."

* Sir Jonah Barrington.

Under Elizabeth, the performance of the Catholic worship was forcibly prohibited in Ireland. The original order is said to be still on record, wherein she orders the rack to be employed, and directed her officers to torture the suspected Irish whenever it might be convenient. She ordered free quarters for her soldiery, to gratify them, and in the hope that it would excite premature insurrections."*

The statute of Limerick made all marriages and nurture of infants, with the Irish, high treason; and the use of Irish names, apparel or language, was made punishable with forfeiture of property or perpetual imprisonment. By the 7th Will. 3, no protestant was allowed to instruct any papist. By the 8th Anne, no papist was allowed to instruct any other papist. By the 7th Will. 3, no papist could be sent out of Ireland to receive instruction. By the 12 Geo. 1, a Catholic clergyman marrying a Protestant and Catholic was to be hanged. By the 2 Anne, a papist clergyman coming into Ireland and performing religious service, was to be hanged. By the 9 Geo. 2, Papists residing in Ireland shall make good to Protestants all losses sustained by the priva teers of any Catholic king, ravaging the coast of Ireland. By the 29 Geo. 2, barristers were obliged to waive their privilege, and betray their clients, if they were Catholics.†

Are not these examples enough to warrant all that has been said in opposition to the system of government adopted in England towards this unfortunate land? In what part of the civilized world shall we look for their parallel? Even in the enslaved and despotic nations of the East, where men are not allowed to hold fortune by the tenure of law, such rules would be held monstrous and inhuman. What shall be said of a land boasting itself the seat of refinement and learning, and, decked in the showy vestments of a meretricious benevolence, giving utterance to homilies of philanthropy and kindness.

But, again we ask, are or were these laws necessary for the safety of the British crown? Were they even necessary for its convenience? Not so. The position cannot be supported; the facts are against the supposition. In the reign of Elizabeth, the most arbitrary measures were adopted towards the people of Ireland. James, a pedant and a tyrant,

* Sir Jonah Barrington.

+ These, with many others, may be found in that interesting and instructive work of Sir Jonah Barrington on Ireland.