tively harmless the effects of anger, dislike, prejudice, or misconstruction. But these pacifying influences are seldom, indeed, devoted to heal Irish religious animosities, which, as before observed, are closely connected with the enmity existing between landowners and tenants.* On the contrary, parents, relations, and friends usually inspire children and young companions with their own prejudices, which, being the result of sincere conviction, they naturally dread to see diminished in the least degree among those it is their duty to instruct and prepare for the world. At the same time, the interests of their differing forms of Christianity are, to most young Irishmen, represented as utterly hostile, if not fatal, to each other. Probably many who by their own natural feelings would gladly live, not only in peace, but in friendship with each other, are expressly warned against any reconciliation

"The subjection of Ireland to the English Crownthe confiscations of six centuries-meant in their minds [Catholic tenant-farmers] change of masters to whom rent was payable, but never a change which annihilated their right to occupy the land on payment of its rent."Sullivan's New Ireland, vol i.

by those very influences which might be expected to enjoin and encourage it.

Thus, in appearance, the history of Ireland, in some respects, repeats itself to the present time. In all Irish revolts or seditious movements since '98 inclusive, eloquence, powerful writing, and fervent oratory have been remarkable and far more common among the disaffected than among the loyal. British rule has usually been more vindicated by force of arms than of words, and what is called the popular side generally opposes existing authority.

A strange absence of just reasoning is still observable in most Irish religious and political parties, and language is habitually used and believed among them which would never stand the test of truthful examination.

For instance, some people imagine that to be attached to British rule is a positive moral and Christian duty; others, again, believe it precisely the reverse. The truth, surely, is that it is no duty to be either. It is entirely a matter of private conscience and conviction. If men really think a government ill-suited to the welfare of the governed, it is impossible for

them to approve it, and they have a perfect legal and moral right to form this conclusion. Obedience to established laws and authorities is quite another matter; yet this appears to be sometimes confounded with attachment. The former is essentially a moral and political duty. Its violation, besides involving tremendous responsibility, would destroy the safety of all society, and incur just punishment from the best government that could be formed by men.

One peculiarity of Irish revolutionary feeling from '98 to the present day is well worth notice. It seems to desire and pursue an ideal government, an attractive fancy, which has no existing model. Lord Edward Fitzgerald and Tone certainly praised the French republic, and called themselves citizens; but history has proved that all French republics, from the first one, established in the last century, to the one now existing inclusive, were all more or less hostile to the political, and even to the educational, influence of the Catholic clergy.* Yet

* "Ever since the French Republic has become stable, a war against the Roman Catholic Church has been relentlessly pursued."-English Times Leader, April 3rd, 1886.

this influence is, and always has been, specially popular in Ireland, and any laws against it would never be acceptable to the country.

O'Connell, the most popular of all Catholic Irishmen, well knew this, and denounced, though in coarse, violent language, both British Whigs and French Republicans.* These political parties have usually been friendly to each other, though doubtless the former sincerely regret the crimes and follies committed by the latter.

Lord Macaulay's disapproval of Burke's attack on the French Revolution,† and recently Mr. John Morley's admiration of the great antiCatholic, if not anti-Christian, philosopher, Voltaire, alike evince a spirit utterly opposed to Irish Catholic feeling and principle. But in

*See Robertson's Lectures on Modern History.

Essay on Southey.

"The partisans of the Christian religion in any of its forms have dealt unrelenting contempt and hatred to the foe who did more than anyone else to reduce their churches, once so majestically triumphant, to their present level, where they are forced, under various guises and with much obsolete pretension, to plead for the tolerance of rational men on the comparatively modest ground

Neither

all the eloquent censure of British rule uttered by Irish orators, no other European Government seems to please them better. the Swedish, Russian, German, Austrian, or Spanish monarchies are praised, though they present instances of Greek, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches in political supremacy. Yet none are chosen for Irish imitation, or avowedly preferred to the much-abused rule of England. The United States of America are alone occasionally mentioned as Ireland's model, but it should be remembered that in the civil war there, since '48, the Irish took opposite sides in the contest.

It is also remarkable that in both speaking and writing against British rule, Irish subjects have hitherto enjoyed a licence and an impunity which probably no European country, perhaps not even America, would permit. When violent speeches and newspaper articles express the bitterest hatred to British tyranny, the freedom of both

of social fitness. Their hostility, we may agree, is not very astonishing when we reflect on the provocation."Morley's Voltaire, page 37.