« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
HORRIBLE ATTACK UPON A PROTESTANT.
To record all the outrages which occur in Ireland within the month, would be utterly impossible. We have latterly made an attempt to note down some of the murders which are making many districts of the country fields of blood. The following case is so distinguished by circumstances peculiar to Irish crime, that it is fitting it should find a place in our gloomy picture of the warfare of Irish politics :
"On Tuesday last, a Protestant, named John Goodlaw, who resides in Carlow, proceeded to the residence of Mr. Browne, of Graney, in the county Kildare, to serve a subpoena for the nonpayment of tithes. On arriving at the house, he found Browne in his kitchen; and after duly serving the notice, he left the place to return home. Browne's servant man followed him through the yard, and commenced blowing a horn, which was immediately answered by others on the adjoining hills.
round, and found about twenty men pursuing him with pitchforks, stones, and bludgeons. Seeing no hope of escape, he begged for mercy, and implored them to let him speak one word to Browne.They led him back to the house, upon which a servant maid told them to take him away,' and immediately shut the door. At this period there were about 40 men on the spot, variously armed. They led their unfortunate victim through the fields, towards the turnpike gate at Graney, where it was proposed by one of the party to commence the work of slaughter whereupon he received a blow of a pitchfork from behind, which laid him prostrate, and they followed up their blows until they supposed he was dead. The cowardly savages then took him up, and threw him in a mangled condition over a high wall into a pool of water;— after which the crowd dispersed, but adopted the precaution of setting two ruffians to watch him, and in case they perceived any symptoms of animation, to dispatch him. The unfortunate man crept out of the water, and staggered to wards the turnpike gate, where he craved for admission in vain, the door being shut in his face. Here he was overtaken by the ferocious villains, who were watching his motions, and knocked down. One of them placed his knee on his breast, and in his exertions to force a knife into his mouth, to cut out his tongue, he dislo
cated the jaw. The other ruffian nearly put out his eyes with a blunt instrument, and after giving him a blow of a stone. on the skull, they left him for dead on the road.
In this condition the unfortunate man lay covered with blood from one till two o'clock in open day, within a few perches of a house, and only a short
distance from a field where several men were at work, and who witnessed the scene; but who, instead of protecting him, cheered the murderers at every blow given their unhappy victim. At this period, Dr. Rawson, of this town,, accompanied by his servant, while driving through the turnpike, saw the body of a man covered with blood lying on the road, but such was the mangled condition of the unfortunate man, a considerable time elapsed before he could recognise him. Just at this moment a horse and car came up, in which were the daughter and servant of a man named Walker, from Clongrennan. Dr. Rawson, knowing the parties to be Protestants, had Goodlaw placed in the car, and covered with straw, and gave directions to bring him without delay to the county infirmary, after which the doctor drove into Carlow. Here it may be supposed that the savage animosity of the ruffians would cease, under the supposition that Goodlaw was dead; the contrary was, however, the fact. The car was pursued, and they threatened to murder the carman for having dared to remove the body off the road. The young woman, however, succeeded in persuading the remorseless wretches not to disturb him, and she arrived in Carlow about seven o'clock, and left the unfortunate man at the infirmary. Shortly after, Charles H. Tuckey, Esq., R.M., took his depositions, and notwithstanding the care, humane attention, and medical assistance of Dr. Rawson, we fear that human aid will prove unavailable, from the nature of the wounds inflicted on his head and body; his face presents a horrid spectacle, the nose being nearly severed with a knife. From the foregoing narrative, our readers will clearly perceive the hand of God conspicuous in the transaction: for, had not Dr. Rawson seen the body on the road, and the car of a Protestant just been passing, Goodlaw would be left on the road, and must in a few hours have perished, during a severe frost."-Carlow Sentinel, quoted in Evening Mail, Dec. 11th.
PERSECUTIONS OF PROTESTANTS.
Dec. 9.We find the following, quoted from the Limerick Standard, in the Warder of this date :
"It becomes our duty to-day to record a very glaring case of persecution effected by a Roman Catholic priest and his unfeeling parishioners upon a whole family of unoffending Protestants, which occurred at a place called Ballyclough, within about three miles of this city, during the course of the past week, and which was detailed by one of the sufferers at our office on Saturday. The following are the particulars:-The name of the Protest ant family is Collins, and it consists of seven individuals a widowed mother, three sons and three daughters. They rented a house and piece of ground at Ballyclough, and had, up to the present time, lived there in a state of tranquillity and comparative comfort. Very recently, however, some property belong ing to Mr. George T. Hill having been stolen, one of the sons, a young man named Michael, made himself instrumental in discovering not only it, but the thieves. In consequence of this praiseworthy conduct on his part, the whole parish raised an outcry against him and bis family, and upon a certain day they received information that "the commit
tee"-what committee we cannot positively say, but we presume a committee
of the Ribbon society-"had held a meeting, and had resolved thereat that their lives (the lives of this Protestant family) would not be worth an hour's purchase unless they quitted the parish immediately. Terrified beyond expression, the poor widow and her children consulted together as to the course they should pursue, and at length came to the determination had so far transgressed as to draw down of sending Michael, the young man who the ire of the populace in the first instance, to the Roman Catholic vicar of his flock from carrying their threats of the parish to entreat of him to dissuade vengeance into execution. The reply parish any longer." A day or two subwas" I'll not allow you to live in the sequent to this interview, the same son of the widow was chased to Penny-well by the mob, where he had to present a case of pistols at them to prevent them from tearing him asunder. It might be easily supposed that persecution such as this could not be endured-accordingly land, which was all their support, on Sathe whole family had to leave house and turday, and to remove into this city for protection, where they have no visible of one of the sufferers who told us the means to live upon. To use the words literally to fly the parish." story with tears in his eyes, they had
VALUE OF LIBERAL SIGNATURES.
LAST month we recorded his Excellency's judgment as to the value of the signatures of the radical magistrates attached to the memorial preferring charges against Major Browne; we have another equally pointed illustration now to add. We copy the following from the Evening Mail of November 27th:
"A memorial has some time since been forwarded to the government, by the same individuals of the party who preferred charges against Major Browne, charging three of the magistrates who presided at Teeson petty sessions, of being actuated by partiality and party spirit, in the execution of their duty, concluding with these words We, the undersigned, have read the foregoing memorial, to the truth of which we here subscribe.' The memorial being referred to the magistrates accused, the following apologies are its best refutation:
Ferrall, Bartholomew Costello, John Ferrall, and Paul Jones, has been referred to me, which I incautiously signed. Finding many of the statements therein contained to be unfounded, I would in the first place offer my apology to his excellency the Lord Lieutenant and the government, for not having been more particular, by a previous investigation of the matter; and next, to the magistrates of the Teeson petty sessions, Messrs. Gillmor and Slane; as also, to Major Snow, S. M., acting with them, the correctness of whose conduct I could never question, but, on the contrary, highly approve.
"I have the honour to be, my lord, your obedient, humble servant,
"WM. PARKE. "Right Honourable Viscount Morpeth, "Chief Secretary." "
THE ARCHBISHOP OF COLOGNE, VERSUS THE MORNING CHRONICLE.
Counsel for Plaintiff, The Morning Chronicle of November 27th contained the following paragraph:
"The conduct of the Catholic Archbishop of Cologne (Droste) has occasioned some trouble in that city and province. He refused to bless or sanction marriages between Protestants and Catholics, unless the children were to be educated in the latter persuasion. This being contrary to the principles of the Prussian government, they urged the archbishop to resign. He refused, and a body of Prussian troops, having surrounded the palace, took the prelate into custody and carried him off to Magdeburgh for committing a breach of the public peace. It is a melancholy duty to be obliged to employ troops to enforce tolerance; but it is a sacred duty when legally and constitutionally applied."
On the day following, Mr. O'Connell replied, affirming that the intolerance was all on the side of the Prussian government, and that the incarcerated prelate was blameless. But what was the evidence by which the learned gentleman proposed to establish his case?-The Dublin Review!
"If you can procure,' he writes, a book published at Augsbugh in 1835, the German name of which signifies Materials,' &c., you will perceive that the King of Prussia,' &c. If you cannot procure that book let me refer you to an article in the Dublin Review.'"
The Dublin Review is a periodical set up by Dr. Wiseman, and Mr. O'Connell, and Mr. Quinn, for the avowed purpose of advocating the cause of the Church of Rome; and for this
*Note, page 45.
Daniel O'Connell, Esq.
reason, were there no other, the learned (actual or ci devant) editor should not have rested his case upon its testimony. But there are still better reasons why he should not cite it. In No. V.* of
the Review, it appears that it was found necessary to exonerate Dr. Wiseman from the responsibility which by his position as its editor he had incurred. In a letter from Mr. O'Connell himself, certain statements alluded to by the Rev. Mortimer O'Sullivan, were declared to be false, groundless, and calumnious-Dr. O'Sullivan replied by quoting the statements verbatim from the Dublin Review; and Mr. O'Connell's silence established, if further proof were necessary, the fidelity of the Rev. Gentleman's citation. It seems therefore daring, even on the part of one so enterprising in speech as Mr. O'Connell, to adduce as the only witness in his favor an unattainable and anonymous book, and a periodical for whose correctness Dr. Wiseman refuses to be answerable, and which Mr. O'Connell has stigmatized by denouncing its statements as false and caluinnious. We would say that by the production of such testimony he betrays the hopelessness of his cause.
But even indulging the learned ultra-montane with a permission to produce his disparaged testimony, and receiving it as if it were admissible, the case it establishes for him is far from creditable. The law of Prussia, which the Archbishop of Cologne resists, is, that, in mixed marriages, the children shall be brought up in the religion of the father. So Mr. O'Connell, by the aid of his partizan
† Addressed to Editor of the Scotsman, dated October, 13, 1836.
witness, instructs us.
He informs us also that the law is bad, and that it is not right by any such law to force or embarrass conscience. Thus he reasons against Protestant Prussia; but for the refractory prelate of Cologne, he argues on principles directly opposite; on the principle, namely, that it is the right and duty of popish ecclesiastics to exert, where they have power, the authority which may not be exercised by the state. The Roman Catholic ecclesiastics in the Prussian territories have an establishment and endowment of which they receive the
AGAINST THE PROTESTANT KING.
"It seems sufficiently clear that this is a subject with which the law ought not to interfere. It should be left, as it is left in these countries, to the contracts or agreements, or to the religious opinions or scruples of the parties themselves.
"But in Prussia it was deemed otherwise," &c.
That is to say-it is of the essence of Protestant toleration that it shall abet the intolerance of the Church of Rome. We apprehend that we shall have more to say on this subject. For the present, we rest content with reminding our readers of the time when wily men said, and men reputed wise believed, that the spiritual and the temporal obedience of Roman Catholics could never clash. Prussia has shown that they may, and Mr. O'Connell teaches which must go to the wall. The laws of Prussia, to prevent dis
benefits; and in return for which they are required to perform services to certain subjects of the King of Prussia. Mr. O'Connell urges that they may withhold those benefits unless the individuals to whom they have become bound to render them, consent, at their dictation, to renounce, as it were, their allegiance to the sovereign, by a deliberate and wilful violation of his laws.
We shall place in parallel columns, the reasoning of the learned advocate as it opposes the rights of the state, and affirms the claims of his church.
FOR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC PRELATE.
"The Archbishop and his clergy were called on with the severest menaces to subscribe a convention or declaration, consisting of four articles. I send you two of them, the second and third.
"Art. 2. In the examination of parties presenting themselves for marriage, the pastor must not interrogate about the religion of the future offspring, and the nuptial benediction must be conferred indifferently on all such marriages.
"Art. 3. In the sacramental confession, the priest is prohibited from obliging the Catholic to rear the children in his or her religion, and must not refuse absolution by their not complying with such conditions.
"Now sir, it is utterly impossible that any Catholic clergyman could conscientiously sign these articles. It is equally clear that the government could not require such signature without directly outraging the religious doctrines and discipline of its Catholic subjects."
cord in families, direct that the children of mixed marriages shall be brought up in the religion (whatever that may be, whether Roman or Protestant) of the father. Popish ecclesiastics admonish their votaries that they are bound to disobey, and menace them with virtual excommunication, with exclusion from sacraments in this life, and from heaven in the next, if they persist in rendering forbidden allegiance to the sovereign. In truth, the ultra-montanes begin to show themselves.
•Letter of Mr. O'Connell to the Editor of the Morning Cronicle, dated Nov. 28th, 1837. + Ibidem.
BATTLE OF THE DIAMOND HOUSE OF COMMONS.
December 5th. The debate of this date fully corroborates the statements in our Number for October.* Colonel Verner's manly and able speech made a strong impression on the House, and even on the parties who had honored him with their hostility. He showed that the "Battle of the Diamond" was a conflict in which loyal men defended themselves against sworn traitors, and proved by incontrovertible documents that the Protestants engaged in it, were amongst those to whose loyalty and bravery the overthrow of rebellion has been, under God, most correctly ascribed. He exposed the poor trick by which an attempt was made to misrepresent a passage in his letter, in which his meaning had been perfectly clear. He described the circuinstances under which the toast had been given, in such a manner as to satisfy men of all parties, and declared that he would have done so before if the letter, addressed to him in the first instance, had not been written in a spirit which rendered explanation impossible. The effect of the gallant colonel's explanation may be seen in Lord Morpeth's reply. The noble lord confessed, late indeed, but unequivocally, that, at the Battle of the Diamond, ROMAN CATHOLICS WERE THE AGGRESSORS." He admitted, also, that had he been previously aware of the circumstances stated by Colonel Verner, that that gentleman should not have been removed from his offices; but, asked the noble lord, "why did not the gallant Colonel explain them in his answer to Mr. Drummond ?"
Because," replied Mr. Shaw, "the letter of Mr. Drummond was couched in such terms, that in the answer to it no man of spirit and independent feeling could have condescended to enter into an explanation." The cheers of the house, and Lord Morpeth's alarm told the value of the question and the reply.
There are many points of the debate upon which, under other circumstances, we should be disposed to dwell. We pass them by, even at the cost of leaving without a notice Mr. Litton's spirited debut, because we desire to fix the attention of Irish
gentlemen, who are justices of the peace on a matter which we regard as of the very highest importance. The debate proves that the Irish Government is capable of demanding an expla nation in insulting terms, and of constituting the natural expression of dissatis faction with which the official affront is received, an offence which calls for púnishment. We defy any man, sound of mind and free from prejudice, to read over the business-like as well as most eloquent speech of Mr. Colqu houn, and to reflect upon the demonstations of turbulence and timidity with which it was followed, but rather avoided than answered, without adopting our opinion. We tell the magistrates of Ireland that their course of duty is plain. The case of Colonel Verner, as it appears in the parlia mentary debate, has made it so. The under secretary is directed to question him, in terins which every man feels to be affronting, and which the confession of the chief secretary proves to be untrue. It is confessed that, previously to the writing the offensive letter in which this question is proposed, the gallant Colonel had done nothing worthy of dismissal. But he replies in the manner which it was natural to expect from an independent and high-minded gentleman, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whose admission proved that the statement of his subordinate was erroneous, who does not deny that the language in which the enquiry was couched, was grossly offensive and unbecoming, leaves Mr. Drummond unrebuked in his office, and, admitting that Colonel Verner had amply and satisfactorily defended himself by his parliamentary explanation, leaves his name erased from the magistracy, because he had not, "with baited breath, and in a bondsman's key," laboured to appease and propitiate the irascible and erring under-secretary. If the magistrates of Ireland think they deserve better language than that which Mr. Drum mond addressed to Colonel Verner, they should say so. If they think it good enough for them, far be it from us again to disturb their composure by complaining of it.