Jerusalem sent a phial composed of a single onyx to Charlemagne, in which the relic was contained. It was brought to Bruges by Thierry of Alsace, in 1148, and preserved with great difficulty through the times of the so-called Reformation.

E. W.

OF THE ANCIENT POETS
OF ERIN.

HISTORY and poetry have been intertwined from the earliest days, and in late years Lord Macaulay has shown to us how gracefully they blend in his wellknown "Lays of Ancient Rome," and Mr. Tennyson, out of dim recesses, has brought the figure of King Arthur, and thrown the electric light of genius upon his unspotted manhood; but in ancient Erin the office of poet to her kings was a more important one than that held by our laureate; indeed, the deference given to him was perhaps not unlike the respect accorded to our Lord Chancellor, for the poet was at once a judge and guardian of historic truth, or of the legendary lore which passed for truth; he was a sage, a teacher; and if he attained to the highest of the seven orders of poets (the ollamh) became a brehon, or judge, and was entitled at table to rank next to the monarch; he had to qualify for this dignity by long years of training, and to be of high reputation, according to the following old verse

Purity of hand, bright without wounding,
Purity of mouth, without poisonous satire,
Purity of learning, without reproach,
Purity of husbandship (or marriage).

He who did not preserve these purities lost half his income and his legal power, and was subject to penalties besides. The bards appear to have inherited many of the offices of the ancient Druids, and Mr. de Vere remarks that their colleges had been a sort of Pagan convents, and he suggests the thought that a people, however barbarous and revengeful in war, who had been trained to so much appreciation of "the beautiful, the pathetic, and the pure," was already in some degree prepared to cast away idolatry for Christianity, and to receive the Divine poetry of “yesterday, to-day, and for ever,"

which, in the holy Psalms, St. Patrick brought to the Western Island. Milton says that "Heaven stoops to feeble virtue," and the Star in the East has shown for all time how earnest and pure study may lead on aspiring, longing, humbly seeking souls to Bethlehem, there to find the knowledge which is above all other knowledge. It was not the design of St. Patrick to destroy the ancient books, but to purge them of evil (and the result of this was a compilation of laws, called the Senchus Mohr;*) not to demolish altars, but to purify and place on them the Cross; not to shut up schools, but to make them Christian

Wisdom then

Prime wisdom saw in Faith ;+ not to silence a nation's music, but to sanctify it. And we know that from the day he landed in the year A.D. 432, the name of the Saint has been the one most treasured in both the history and poetry of Erin. C.

SONNET.

After pondering upon the praise of Mary in the Litany of Loreto.

Who has not watched the stars like brilliants thrown

Bright, broadcast, on the wintry brow of night, Sparkling with still and yet uncertain light? Who has not wondered where the unmeasured zone Is set to limit worlds of worlds unknown? Perchance the stars that sight and science see Are but as nought to that immensity, Which He, who made its glory, spans alone So,-perfect One, the Spirit's Spouse all fair— I wonder, as with thee my heart delays, Where is the bound unreached by angel's prayer Of all that might be thought of thee or told. I have but paused on one small point of gold, I see above, as if to lure me there, Endless as bright, thy firmament of praise. M.E.A.

No. 89.-VOL. VIII.]

THE JUBILEE OF EMANCIPATION.-II.

IN

'N our April number we expressed the intention of treating more in detail, the different ways in which the Church has so wonderfully developed, during the last fifty years. We also added that we should introduce some historical sketches of the British portion of the Catholic Church, since the time when the penal laws were first relaxed. It will produce a greater connection between our proposed articles, and may be more interesting to the reader, if we take our history in regular succession. As we proceed we shall make the reflections which the matter will suggest; and hope to learn the lessons for the present which will be taught by the past. It will be necessary to introduce a good deal of what has been done in Ireland. The Irish portion of the Church, and the English portion of the Church, stand in two very different positions. In both, it is true, Catholics were persecuted and kept down, but in England they were well-nigh exterminated, whereas in Ireland, while the political influence of Catholics was destroyed, the faith increased as they tried to stamp it out, and the green blade sprang up in luxuriance beneath the feet of the oppressors. A hundred years ago in England Catholics had everything to gain; in Ireland they had religion to preserve, and political influence to acquire. It was a consequence of this state of things, that as soon as the Legislature began to relax the penal laws, and the Irish Catholics could act with greater freedom, their numbers, their larger middle class, their more numerous gentry, began to exercise their legitimate influence in public affairs. This influence increased, and became at

[PRICE 3d.

last an overwhelming power, when under the command of the great O'Connell, it forced the power of England to yield, and to grant the Emancipation of 1829. This power of the Irish Catholics had its effect in Great Britain. Here we had no force, physical or moral, to use; but what had been granted to the Irish could hardly have been refused to the English Catholics. It may be said that the Irish were relieved because they became too strong to be any longer ill-treated; we English were relieved because we were too weak to be feared. As the great Catholic power in the United Kingdom during the last hundred years has been, and still is, in Ireland, that power has, under good Providence, been exerted in many ways to improve the position of Catholics in England. It is impossible, therefore, to tell the history of British Catholics, and to recount the progress we have made, without frequently alluding to this great motive power which our good God has made use of, to bring about the happy result.

The first indication of any kind of desire on the part of the Legislature, to relax the tyranny which Government exercised over Catholics, occurred in the year 1771. We will give the short account of it, in the words of Mr. Sheil. After mentioning that the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons had received an address from the Catholics for transmission to the Lord Lieutenant, he says, "This was the first instance in which the political existence of the Irish Catholics was acknowledged, through the medium of their Committee. This recognition, however, was not followed by any immediate relaxation of the penal code. Twelve years elapsed before any legislative measure was introduced, which indicated a

E

more favourable disposition towards the Catholic community, if, indeed, the 11th and 12th of George III. (1771), can be considered as having conferred any boon upon that people. The statute was entitled, 'An Act for the reclaiming of unprofitable bogs,' and it enabled 'Papists' to take fifty acres of unprofitable bog for sixty-one years, with half an acre of arable land adjoining, provided that it should not be within one mile of a town.”

"The first step," continues Mr. Sheil, "had been taken in the progress of concession, and every day the might of numbers, even destitute of all territorial possession, pressed more and more upon the Government."*

In the year 1774, an Act was passed in the Irish Parliament, which served as an immediate prelude to the Acts which began the repeal of the penal laws. This Act permitted the Irish Catholics to testify their loyalty to George III. by taking a prescribed oath. The Rev. Thomas England, in his Life of Father Arthur O'Leary, writes that the Act was said to have had its origin in the following occurrence. The Earl of Bristol, Bishop of Derry, was travelling in France; and being at Toulouse, he was invited to dinner by the Superiors of the Irish College in that city. At this dinner the Earl Bishop expressed his regret, that his kind and learned hosts should be obliged to spend the best part of their lives in a foreign land. But to this expression of regret he added, that he could not understand why his countrymen should refuse to the sovereign of their native country, that allegiance which they gave to the monarch in whose dominions they were living. This observation drew forth from the hosts a denial of its truth. A long talk ensued, the result of which was that the Bishop of Derry left the College, convinced of the loyalty of the Irish Catholics, and of the falsehood of the many gross charges that were made against them. On his return to Ireland, the Bishop spread as widely as he could the statement that the Catholics were ready to testify in any reasonable way their

* Sheil, Legal and Political Sketches," vol. ii. p. 161.

loyalty to King George; and he did this with such effect, that it was the origin of the Bill which terminated in the Act of 1774. The friendly conduct of the Bishop may have helped towards a more willing acceptance by the Protestants, of the small favour that was given to the Catholics by the Act we are speaking of. But there can be no doubt that the real origin of this first overture to the Catholics, was the same that caused all further concessions to us, namely, fear on the part of the English Government. The Americans were beginning to show in a most decided manner their determination to resist, even by physical force, the imposition of taxes upon them by the British Parliament. The Government at home had determined to levy by force, what the colonists would not peaceably yield. A great conflict was foreseen. It became, therefore, a matter of policy to conciliate Ireland, in order to promote union at home, draw off the sympathy of the Irish from the Americans, and make the Irish more inclined to enlist in the regiments, which it would be necessary to send across the Atlantic. Sir Robert Peel once said in the House of Commons, that when foreign affairs showed a menacing aspect, and England was likely to be involved in questions threatening war, he was always glad to be able to send a message of peace to Ireland. And so thought the English Government when the Americans commenced their revolt. They sent a message of peace to Ireland.

As it is desirable that Catholics should thoroughly understand their position in the United Kingdom, and amongst other things, the motives from which concessions to them have sprung, it may be well at the very outset to fix steadily in the mind the truth, that fear has been the prevailing motive of all Acts of relief. The chief motive for the reception of the address from the Irish Catholics by the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons above alluded to, was that it was a loyal address upon the alarm of the invasion of Conflans in the year 1759. The threatening attitude of the colonists produced, as we have seen, the Irish Act of 1774In the month of February, 1778, the

French solemnly acknowledged the independence of the United States, and concluded with them a defensive treaty, which England treated as a declaration of war. In the following month of May the first Act relieving the English Catholics was brought into Parliament, and passed without opposition; and the first Act which repealed any of the penal laws against the Catholics of Ireland was passed about the same time in College Green. The next relief Act was that passed in Ireland, 1782, to conciliate the Catholics in presence of the armed volunteers, and a threatened invasion from France. In the year 1790, the alarm of the French Revolution sounding through Europe, an Act was passed to explain and amend a previous relief Act, which had not produced the effect intended; but, as Sir Henry Parnell observes, "This common act of justice was not, in any degree, the result of an inclination on the part of the Government to treat the Catholics with more than customary liberality." "The state of affairs in France threatening still more to involve other European nations, naturally caused a desire on the part of the English Government to promote as far as possible the union of all Englishmen; and an Act giving substantial relief to English Catholics was passed at Westminster in the year 1791. On the 21st of January, 1793, Louis XVI. was executed, and on the following 1st of February, the National Convention declared war against England. Irish soldiers were immediately wanted. In addition to this, a conspiracy with Republican tendencies was known to be forming, which professed to embrace all Irishmen, but in reality was confined to the Protestants and Presbyterians of the North. It was most important, therefore, to conciliate the Catholics; accordingly, to use the words of Moore, the very same Parliament which in 1792 rejected with scorn the whole petition of the Catholics, in the very next year precipitately granted more than they asked for; and the relief Act of 1793 was passed.† Finally, all

* Sir H. Parnell on the penal laws. +"Memoirs of Captain Rock," pp. 330 and 336.

the world knows that the Emancipation Act of 1829 was passed, as Wellington and Peel both avowed, to prevent a civil war in Ireland.

It cannot be denied that other causes besides fear operated in a certain degree to produce concessions to Catholic claims. The spirit of animosity against us had lessened in the breasts of many, the principle of religious liberty, as it is called, had taken deep root in some master minds, as in those of Burke, Fox, and Canning; and party feeling found the Catholic question a convenient one to bring to the front. But all these motives only brought the Protestant feeling of the country up to a certain point. The history of the Relief Bills clearly shows, that not one of them would have been passed at the time it was, if fear of something worse than concessions to Catholics, had not driven our oppressors to action. Since the passing of the Emancipation Act, it cannot be said that any one of the many Acts for our relief, has been caused by the fear of French invasion, or of a revolution in Ireland. But the most substantial of those Acts which have passed of late years, have been promoted for reasons, which may be resolved into fear of another kind, namely, in order to gain or for fear of losing the Catholic vote. Public opinion

in England in regard to the concessions enumerated above, and the actual force of the different motives which brought about those concessions, may be well illustrated by the state of public opinion now, and the motives which now operate, to incline our countrymen to act justly to us. As we noticed last month, there is no county or borough in England which will return a Catholic member to Parliament. It would be almost universally admitted that in theory, a candidate should not be rejected on account of his religious opinions. But in practice, no matter how much more eligible a Catholic might be than his Protestant rival, he would poll but few votes, simply on account of his religion. If it were possible that some great evil to the county or borough might ensue, from the rejection of the better man, the fear of that evil,

and that fear alone would ensure his return.*

There is no doubt something discouraging in the thought that fear is the chief motive which urges the majority to do us justice. But as we have so many things to encourage us, we must not allow too much influence to that discouraging thought. And even in this very motive of fear, which forces sometimes justice to be done, we can bring good out of evil. For we learn from it that we Catholics have a power which, if prudently used, is good both for defence and for attack. When fear operates as a motive to give us what is our due, it is because there is something in us to be afraid of. It is a good thing for us to know this; and it is a still better thing for us to understand it, and the use we can make of the knowledge. If we were governed by a mob, if a succession of pamphlets like those which Mr. Gladstone wrote against us a few years ago, were to succeed in renewing in the year 1880 the No-Popery riots of 1780, then indeed fear would be all on our side, and we should be overborne and trodden down by numbers. But so long as opposition to the Catholic Church is to be kept within the bounds of the Englishman's favourite axiom, “civil and religious liberty;" so long as we can act with the same freedom as others act, and receive the same fair play as is given to all others, we have a right to expect that the same motives will operate in the dealings of our countrymen with us, as would operate in their dealings with any other body of the same number and importance as ourselves. Due weight is always given to numbers and importance; and the effect which that weight has is often nothing more than that wholesome fear, which prevents a majority from becoming tyrannical and a Minister from being a tyrant. If the Catholics of the United Kingdom had been a united body

* It is thought by some, that there are certain towns and divisions of counties which would return a Catholic, if those who could offer themselves as candidates under favourable circumstances, would do so. There is perhaps some truth in this with regard to a very limited number of places. On a future occasion, we shall return to the subject.

from the time that a common interest should have bound them together, their numbers and importance would not have been, by fits and starts, a motive for fear; but they would have been continually in action, and our position in the State would have answered much more accurately to the great principles of English liberty than at present it can be said to do.

Before concluding this article, we will add a few more words of the history of the Act of 1774. It is well known that down to the year 1782, the Irish Parliament was in practice at least entirely dependent upon the English Government. The English Minister could pass what Bills he liked in Ireland. Two Bills of small relief were introduced into the Irish Parliament in the beginning of the session of 1774, but they did not proceed. Their introduction was in consequence of instructions received by the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Harcourt, from Lord North. Lord North was anxious to conciliate the Irish Catholics, in order to unite the subjects of the King in Great Britain and Ireland, and because he saw that some of the maxims of government, especially the one which was loudly proclaimed in America, "no representation, no taxation," applied rather awkwardly to the state of things on the other side of St. George's Channel. These Bills were given up on the advice of Lord Harcourt. At length, however, the British Minister, says Mr. Plowden, sent positive orders that some Act of the Legislature should be passed in that session of a conciliatory tendency to the Catholics. Accordingly a Bill was brought in, which when it became an Act, was entituled "an Act to enable his Majesty's subjects, of whatever persuasion, to testify their allegiance to him." This Bill passed both Houses without opposition. It repealed no penal law it simply allowed the Irish Catholics to profess their loyalty, a thing which, strange to say, they had not been allowed to do with any recognition from the governing power.

Any one who has read the details of that history, of which in the first part of this article we have only given a sketch, must be struck with the great power