CHAPTER VII.

Subterfuge sanctioned by Pope Adrian's Grant.-How far back are recuperative Rights to extend?-The Papistical authority restrained and fixed by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1649.The Fixity of Tenure, as explained by Mr. O'Connell.-Sir John Davies.-Mr. O'Connell's sense of governing, essentially at variance with the free spirit of the English Constitution. Revulsion of Catholic feeling in the days of Cromwell. -Charles II.'s Declaration at Breda.-Conduct of Talbot and the Delegates towards the King and Ormond.-Mr. O'Connell's declared intentions must frustrate the fulfilment of his theories.-The personal influence of Ormond insufficient to repress the High Parliament and People.-Will that of O'Connell be more effective with the Priesthood?—Fatal subversion by the Irish of Ormond's government.-Lord Wellesley's retirement from the government of Ireland.-The mean pretexts of Charles's government for Ormond's recall. -The spirit and the letter of the Law.

THE Opposition in England, in their policy towards Mr. O'Connell, resemble that of Louis the Fourteenth towards the Pope when he abandoned the sublime system of the treaty of Westphalia, the admiration of the world, to place himself at the head of extreme Catholic influence. The Grand Monarch attempted to cajole the Pope by entering into a concordat with his holiness, as the Opposition seem to do with Repealers; but all the while the French king took good care, as far as the spiritual and temporal power of the Holy See affected the Gallican church, that it should not,

in any essential matter, outstep the limits to which it was confined by the labours of Munster.

The Pope and France distrusted each other, but believed their apparent accordance would ultimately be to their separate advantage. This is the situation of the Catholics throughout EUROPE, as they are every where viewing with breathless anxiety the state of Ireland. Those especially who oppose the present government of England, distrust Mr. O'Connell, and disapprove of much of his policy. The Catholics of England and Ireland flatter themselves that time and circumstances will prevent his going too far, but they trust that agitation may advance to an extent that will give them greater power in state affairs.

A most dangerous credence, after what has escaped Mr. O'Connell, as to the mode in which he means to invite the anticipated new legislative authority of Ireland, to deal with the vested rights of property!

Let human wisdom be ever so great, where will be its power to stop, or how is it to regulate, within any safe limits, a judgment which has to deal with property in the way Mr. O'Connell avows his intention of doing with estates, held under the same title since the days of James the First? But Ireland, in regard to the right and title of property, is differently situated from most parts of Europe.

In Germany, sometimes, title to property was given by the Pope, which grew out of admitted ecclesiastical power, temporal, spiritual, and civil, that had been vested in his holiness by the princes and the people themselves; whereas, the chieftains of the old Irish never thought of going to the Pope, to make good their right to the possession of lands, till they had

obtained such holding, through the means of conquest, from rival chieftains. When they went to the Pope, their policy was intended to be a concession to Pope Adrian's grant, and was a mental alienation of the allegiance they had sworn to an heretical sovereign!

In Ireland, the strongest who could hold his lands against the weak, commanded the best favour with the Pope; and this was ultimately the best title, sometimes, against the inroads of the Catholic clergy upon the property of these very chieftains.

The policy at this time was, for the clergy to make their flocks pay by their purses, whilst the Irish chieftain commanded his vassals to devote their persons to his service. This (as a modern lawyer would call it) was the consideration by which both clerical and lay proprietors held their property; provided always that Peter's pence were duly secured to the Holy Pontiff.

If the Protestant right of property in Ireland has been obtained by conquest, and therefore should be alienated (as Mr. O'Connell requires), what becomes of the right of the original property of the Desmonds, the Tyrones, the O'Neils, the O'Rileys, the O'Birnes, the O'Carrols, the Bourkes, and many others?

They came to it by conquest, and from some of them it went away by the same means.

Surely, a title granted by a lawful sovereign, and consolidated by Imperial parliaments, is better than one which depended upon facilitating the sinister purpose of the Papal see, in maintaining a primeval right over the lands of Ireland, contrary to the principles declared by the Catholic Council of Trent, or the arguments used at the Confession of Augsbourg, that out of the principles laid down at the Reformation.

grew

Deny the Council of Trent; dispute the arguments of the Reformation; pay no respect to the Confession of Augsbourg, then the Irish open the flood-gates of mutiny against all civil government now established in Europe, and let loose Papistical authority, that has been effectually restrained ever since the treaty of Westphalia in 1649, throughout all Europe!

Examine the policy of Mr. O'Connell, with regard to "fixity of tenure." Why, the veriest dolt who can "run and read," must see that this flimsy attempt is nothing more than a return to the system when lands in Ireland were under the control of great chieftains, and of the clergy, held by what was significantly termed Termon, Corbe, and Hernach, "servi homines ecclesiasticæ," according to the dog-Latin of the Pope; these lands were exempt from all charges of temporal lords, and had the privilege of granting sanctuary.

The same tenure existed in Germany before the Reformation, which contributed much to the success of Luther. It must be obvious to the meanest understanding, that if it be made compulsory for a landlord to give a one-and-twenty years' lease to an occupying tenant, the beneficial interest of the lease, in the end, would go away from both landlord and tenant.

For a lease, to an occupying farm-tenant, is only advantageous to himself, and mutually so to his landlord, when the leaseholder possesses his own capital, which he employs on the estate. If capital be borrowed, the profit gets into the hands of the richer neighbour, or crafty adviser, to benefit but partially the landlord, and is of no use to the tenant; but, indubitably, in Ireland, the valuable consideration would find its resting-place with the Roman Catholic priest

hood; and this would be a return to the "servi homines ecclesiastica."

What a pretty question this would be for local Irish legislation to deal with,-the parliament in Dublin, fully assembled, according to the more enlarged exercise of the elective franchise, proposed by Mr. O'Connell !

So many personal interests would intervene; so many men, with no real equitable right, or title to estates, would assume a legislative authority to deal with the vested rights of others; so many persons, in appearing to protect the interests of the public, would be, in reality, urging the extortion of the middle men, as they are termed; and in fact, be no more than the agents of the Priesthood, who surreptitiously participated with them in the benefit to be derived from this fixity of tenure. Then might come the seeking from Parliament compensation for imaginary rights, founded upon false representation; the disorder that has always afflicted native Irish legislation.

Sir John Davies, speaking of the policy of James the First, says: "The Irishy, in former times were left under the tyranny of their Lords and Chieftains, had no defence." Then, again, he says of this policy :-"This bred such comfort and security in the hearts of all men, as thereupon ensued the calmest and most universall peace that ever was seen in Ireland!" This is the policy Mr. O'Connell repudiates, although he quotes from the same author.

We believe legislative enactments may be usefully employed, to regulate efficaciously the dealings between landlord and tenant in Ireland; but local legislation always has been bad authority to deal with such subjects; it was pre-eminently so in France, before the