Czytaj książkę: «Ireland as It Is, and as It Would Be Under Home Rule», strona 48

No. 61. – CLERICAL DOMINATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Those who play at bowls must expect rubbers. The Roman priesthood of Ireland having assumed the manipulation of Irish politics, have laid themselves open to mundane criticism. Said Mr. Gladstone: – "It is the peculiarity of Roman theology that by thrusting itself into the temporal domain, it naturally, and even necessarily, comes to be a frequent theme of political discussion." Priestly pretensions to authority are without limit. The Catholic clergy of Ireland claim the right to coerce the laity in political matters, themselves remaining exempt from public criticism. They also claim to be exempt from civil jurisdiction, and to have the right of overruling the law of the land, with every moral obligation, when clashing with the interests of the Church. They distinctly teach that every political question is a question of morals, and that to vote against the priest's instructions is a deadly sin. Such being a few of the claims advanced by the Irish priesthood, let us see on what rests the hope of these extraordinary demands being recognised. A.M. Sullivan, a Roman Catholic Nationalist M.P., says: – "Of all Catholic nations or countries in the world – the Tyrol alone excepted – Ireland is perhaps the most Papal, the most ultramontane. In Ireland religious conviction – what may be called active Catholicism – marks the population, enters into their daily life and thought and action. The churches are crowded as well by men as by women, and in every sacrament and ceremony of their religion participation is extensive and earnest. Reverence for the sacerdotal character is so deep and strong as to be called superstition by observers who belong to a different faith; and devotion to the Pope, attachment to the Roman See, is probably more intense in Ireland than in any other part of the habitable globe, the Leonine city itself not excluded." In other words, the Irish are more Roman than the Romans themselves. Here we have on the one hand the claims of the Romish priesthood, and on the other the disposition of the Irish people. But as the alleged claims will to the majority of Englishmen appear monstrous and incredible, it becomes necessary to prove that these claims are actually made.

The fall of Parnell brought the clergy into striking prominence. The powerful personality of the Irish leader, his great popularity, and his determination to rule alone, had to some extent forced the Church into the background. Parnell once removed, the Church at once aimed at undivided rule, directing all her energies to this end mercilessly and without scruple. Her instruments were worthy of the work. The modern Irish priest is usually low-bred, vulgar, and ignorant. The priest of Lever's novels, brimming over with animal spirits, full of bonhomie, sparkling with wit and abounding with jovial good-nature, is nowhere to be found. The men of the olden time were educated in France, and by rubbing against the cultured professors of Douai or Saint Omer, had acquired a polish, a breadth of view, a savoir faire, denied to the illiterate hordes of Maynooth. The olden priest was loyal, just as cultured Irishmen who have travelled, whether in America, England, or elsewhere, are loyal and averse to Home Rule. The modern priest, usually the son of an Irishman such as visits England at harvest time, brought up amidst squalor and filth, is in full sympathy with the limited ideas of the peasantry among whom he was reared. The conversation of his parents and associates would relate to the burden of the Saxon yoke, and his surroundings would perpetually re-echo the stories of Ireland's wrongs and woes. Any literature he might absorb would be a priest-written history of Ireland, with the rebel doggerel of 1798 and the more seductive sedition of later years. At Maynooth he meets a crowd of students like himself, crammed to the throat with his own prejudices, viewing everything from the same standpoint. He returns to the people a full blown ecclesiastic, saturated with a sense of his own importance and the absolute supremacy of the Church he represents; knowing nothing of mankind outside his own narrow sphere, profoundly ignorant of the world's political systems, and intensely inimical to England. Average Keltic priests fully bear out the description furnished by a loyal priest of Donegal, who, on alluding to their social status and Maynooth course, said: – "They are merely shaved labourers, stall-fed for three years."

As to their exceptional claims. The attitude of omniscience and omnipotence has often been crudely stated by the Catholic hierarchy. Archbishop Walsh, of Dublin, has declared that there is no dividing line between religion and politics. Dr. Walsh has also laid down the dictum that, "As priests and independent of all human organisations, we have an inalienable and indisputable right to guide our people in every proceeding where the interests of Catholics as well as the interests of Irish nationality are involved." This prelate rescinded the wholesome rule enforced by his predecessors, forbidding the clergy to take part in political demonstrations. He went further. He ordered that at all political conventions an ex-officio vote should be given to the priests. It is in view of this fact that the Unionists of Ireland not unreasonably declare that under a Home Rule Bill the Roman Catholic clergy would become endowed with civil privileges which would make them absolute rulers of Ireland. It may be urged that Bishop Walsh is discredited at Rome, and that therefore his utterances may be somewhat discounted. But what of the new Irish Cardinal, Archbishop Logue, of Armagh? He agrees with Dr. Walsh, and with reference to the Parnellite split, thus delivers himself: – "We are face to face with a grave disobedience to ecclesiastical authority! The doctrines of the present day are calculated to wean the people from the priests' advice, to separate the priests from the people, and to let the people use their own judgment!" Surely nothing could be clearer or more uncompromising than this. Bishop Nulty, alluding to the refusal of Mr. Redmond's political party to accept without question the political commands of the Church, thus hinted at the consequences to recalcitrant Papists: – "It is exclusively through us that the clean and holy oblation of the mass is offered daily for the living and the dead on the thousands of altars throughout our country. It is through our ministry that the poor penitent gets forgiveness of his sins in the Sacrament of Penance. The dying Parnellite will hardly dare to face the justice of his creator till he has been prepared and anointed by us for the last awful struggle and for the terrible judgment that will immediately follow it." This threat of eternal damnation was eagerly taken up and re-echoed by the inferior clergy. Father Patrick O'Connell speaking from the altar at Ballinabrackey said that no Parnellite could receive the sacrament worthily, and warned all parents against allowing their sons or daughters to attend a Parnellite meeting, as it was not a merely political matter, but a matter of their holy religion. In his sermon he referred to a meeting of the political party favoured by the Church, and said that every man, woman, and child must be present. All must assemble at the chapel, and all must be in time to walk in procession to the place of meeting. He would be there with Father McLoughlin, and the pair would go round to see who was absent. All absentees must let him know the reason why, and if the reason did not satisfy him he would meet them in the highways and in the byways, at the Communion rails, and would "set fire to their heels and toes." He would make it hot for them. There would be no compromise. All voters against clerical instruction he denounced as "infidels and heretics." Mr. Edward Weir, who was suspected of having opinions of his own, was denounced in Castlejordan Chapel as a 'Pigotted Guardian.' He was a member of the Poor Law Board. He was threatened to be 'met at the communion rails,' by which he understood that the sacrament would be refused to him. Two nights afterwards the hedge around his house was set on fire, and fire was placed on the gate in front of it. This was a gentle hint that the people were backing the priest, and that unless he complied his house might be next destroyed. When Mr. Michael Saurin, J.P., a member of the Ballinabrackey congregation, went to vote, the door of the booth was crammed to keep him out. The crowd booed and shouted at him, and he was spat upon. The priests were present in force. Nicholas Cooney was also spat upon, and so was his brother, both on their clothes and in their faces. Father Woods was looking on. Matthew Brogan, who was also thought to be against clerical dictation, was refused admission to mass; and not only poor Matthew himself, but his son, daughter-in-law, her children, and two friends who were suspected of sympathy. The woman insisted on entering the chapel, when one of the crowd of true believers "near cut the hand off her." Michael Kenny and Peter Fagan were served with the same sauce by these enthusiastic preachers of the Onward March to Freedom, poor Fagan exhibiting the touching devotion of the Irish peasantry by kneeling outside during the whole of the service. Englishmen do not realise what these refusals mean to Irish Catholics. They constitute the cruellest and most effective coercion possible. To be refused the sacraments, to be turned away from the door of his chapel, is to the Irish peasant a turning away from the gates of Paradise, a denial of the Kingdom of Heaven, a condemnation to everlasting torment, to say nothing of the accompanying odium in which he is held by his neighbours and associates, and the ever present dread of boycotting. Thomas Brogan dare not leave the polling-booth for his life, until Mr. Carew took him on his car. He had been threatened by the priest, who drew a circle round him with a walking stick, to show that he was cut off from his fellows, and that contamination must be feared. Patrick Hogan, whose views were not in accordance with those of the priest, was afraid to vote. He went to the booth, but feared to proceed. Thomas Dunn was more plucky, but his temerity resulted in a cut face and a black eye for his wife at the hands of a patriot named James Mitchell. Father McEntee tore down a party flag belonging to the station-master of Drumree, a Parnellite, and jumped on it, in a towering rage, saying that the owner must follow the instructions of the Bishop. He then threw the flag into a field. Father Crinnion, of Batterstown, standing in his vestments at the altar, called out the names of all persons supposed to be disaffected to the clerical cause, and ordered them to meet him in the vestry after mass. He asked for their votes, and showed a ballot paper. He had previously read in chapel the opinion of Bishop Nulty, quoted above. Father Tynan told Patrick King that unless he voted "straight" he would not receive the sacraments on his deathbed. The same priest told John Cowley, of Kilcavan, that unless he voted for the right candidate he would be expelled from the Church, and would be deprived of Christian burial when he died. Cases of this kind might be multiplied ad infinitum. Father Shaw, of Longwood, accentuated the horrible condition of the party who refused to vote under his orders by asking his congregation to pray for them. Father Cassidy sailed on the same tack, and besides thanked God that the "wrong 'uns" were so few. Father Fay, of Cool, said (between the Gospels) that his political opponents should be "treated like wild beasts," and that he would never forget the men who voted against his orders. Thomas Darby was canvassed by his priest, who, on finding that his parishioner was pledged the other way, curtly said, "Then you'll go to hell," to which Darby replied that he would at any rate have a few companions. James Guerin has no confidence in the secrecy of illiterate voting, for after voting in the presence of a priest he had to jump a wall and hide in a wood to escape the vengeance of the people. When he came out, at ten o'clock at night, he was stoned. Father O'Donnell, presumably in the interests of peace, advised his congregation to take their sticks to a certain meeting, and promised to be there with his own faithful blackthorn. The peasant Fagan, who said his prayers outside the chapel, was burned in effigy, but priestly displeasure was not satisfied until his cowshed, with a cart and harness were also destroyed by fire. To have independent opinions costs something substantial in Ireland. The aspirations of a People and the Onward March to Freedom are not kept up for nothing. The patriots are not afraid of their trouble. They will not spoil the Union of Hearts for want of a little incendiarism. Now and then, but very seldom, the priests meet their match. They presume on their spiritual immunity. The priest who refused to leave a house into which he had intruded was threatened by Colonel Dopping with expulsion. "Dare to touch my consecrated body," said the "shaved labourer." "Your consecrated body be hanged!" said the Colonel, and out went Father McFadden. Father Fay, of Summerhill, said in a sermon delivered at Dangan: – "You must not look upon me as a mere man! The priest is the ambassador of Jesus Christ, and not like other ambassadors either. He carries his Lord and master about with him, and when the priest is with the people, Almighty God is with them!" Father Fagan, of Kildalkey, was so vexed with the refusal of John Murtagh to vote according to clerical instructions that he said: – "May the landlords come and hunt the whole of ye to hell's blazes." Murtagh said, "Ye wish yer neighbour well, Sorr!" The man of God threatened to kick poor Murtagh into the ditch, to which the erring parishioner replied that in that case he would kick the good shepherd like a puppy. "Ah," said Father Fagan, "you ruffian, you'll want me at the Last Day," and refused to hear his wife's confession. The woman was dying, the husband had been for the priest, and on the way to what proved a death-bed, Father Fagan improved the shining hour by trying to nobble a straying vote. The clergy make the most of their opportunities. At Boardmills Father Skelly spread out a ballot paper on the altar at Sunday service. Having described the situation of the names, he pointed out where they were to make the cross. He then went on with the mass. He thought of something else! Some of them, he hinted, were pledged to the other side. They could shout for this candidate, but when they went to vote they must "wink the other eye," as advised by the music-hall song. Colonel Nolan, M.P., when canvasing at Headford, was violently assaulted by a priest, who cut open the Parnellite head with a stout blackthorn. Like a good Catholic, the Colonel would fain have endured this clerical argument; but the police authorities insisted on the matter seeing the light.

Clerical domination and the means by which it is attained are therefore proven by undeniable evidence. The Papal hierarchy and their subordinates are resolved to be supreme. Aut Cæsar, aut nullus. And it is a striking fact that by none is this doctrine so strongly deprecated, so bitterly resented, as by the educated and enlightened portion of Roman Catholic Ireland. Their aspirations are all on the side of toleration, harmony and peaceful progress. They are not only law-abiding, but loyal, and unlike the ignorant clergy and their still more ignorant dupes, are ever ready to join in singing "God Save the Queen." From an English, even a Conservative point of view, the educated Catholics of Ireland, like all classes of English Catholics, are everything that can be desired. But what are they among so many?

The consequences of clerical domination, obtained by spiritual and physical intimidation, are obvious enough. I have not space to show how the system has been carried into the confessional, but numerous examples are on record. Neither was it within the scope of this article to prove, as could easily be done, that the clergy of Rome claim to be above and outside the action of the statute law, and that their action is calculated to make the position of Protestants untenable. The moral degradation of the people, as exemplified by their dread of the priest, who escorts them in hundreds to the polling-booth, and by his persistent action and untiring vigilance exploits their electoral power for his own aggrandisement, and for the acquisition of Papal supremacy in Ireland, is to Englishmen of all considerations the most important. Recent events have demonstrated the fact that the politics of Ireland – and therefore the politics of England – can be almost completely controlled for any purpose by the thirty prelates who practically command the votes of an entire people. A Roman Catholic barrister said to me: – "I do not blame the priests for doing the best they can for themselves. They have the power, and they use it for their own purposes. I say they use it unfairly, and the Meath election petition has proved that they use it illegally. They think otherwise, but without arguing this point, I say that clerical domination will ruin the country. Irish election returns are for the most part worthless as an expression of public opinion." Another talented Irishman said: – "The glorious British Empire is now bossed by a party of priests." And that this is unhappily true must be conceded by every observant and impartial Englishman.

Yet some there are, blind followers of the blind, obtuse to every argument, impregnable to incontrovertible facts, who have cast in their lot with the avowed enemies of England. They have their day – every dog has it – but their day is far spent, and their night is at hand. For England will never again submit to Romish rule. Nor will Ireland when her eyes are opened.

Birmingham, August 16th.

No. 62. – CIVIL WAR A CERTAINTY OF HOME RULE

English supporters of Mr. Gladstone affect to ridicule the fears of armed and organised conflict between the rival races and religions of Ireland. Their attitude in this respect is doubtless due to a slavish following of their master. They keep their eye upon their figure-head. When it frowns they become serious. When it smiles they try to be funny. When it assumes an aspect of virtuous indignation, the tears immediately spring to their eyes, and they go about saying what a shame it is. They remind you of Professor Anderson and his Inexhaustible Bottle. Like Paddy Byrne's barometer, they are "stuck fast at Changeable." They are always on the move. Like Virgil's lady, they are varium et mutabile. Like Shakespeare's gentlemen, they are Deceivers ever, One foot on shore and one foot on sea, To one thing constant never. Every morning they nervously scan the journals to see what change of sentiment is required. Without this precaution they would run the risk of meeting their political friends with the wrong facial expression. The reason for all this is well known. Their motto is ad exemplum regis. To-day Mr. Gladstone believes (or says he believes) that if Ireland were left to herself, and the disturbing, domineering, tyrannising influence of England were removed, the rival races and religions would live together in perfect harmony and brotherly love. His followers eagerly adopt this belief. But yesterday Mr. Gladstone believed (or said he believed) "That the influence of Great Britain in every Irish difficulty is not a domineering and tyrannising, but a softening and mitigating influence, and that were Ireland left to her own unaided agencies, it might be that the strife of parties would then burst forth in a form calculated to strike horror through the land." His followers believed that too, and they would believe it again to-morrow if their leader harked back. The quotation is from Hansard, and commences, "It is my firm belief." What do Mr. Gladstone's infirm beliefs resemble?

Putting aside the changeable Premier, gyrating like a dancing dervish, and his Penny-in-the-slot party, let us call respectable evidence; let us hear the opinion of competent and trustworthy witnesses; let us examine the character of the forces which will be brought into antagonism; let us observe what steps have been taken in view of possibilities more or less remote; and then let us form our own conclusions. And first as to opinions and evidence, let us hear Mr. J.A. Froude, of all English historians the most famous expert on Irish subjects. "The effect of Grattan's Constitution was to stimulate political agitation and the conflict of the two races." That was a Home Rule Parliament. And again Mr. Froude says: – "Ireland is geographically and politically attached to this country, and cannot be allowed to leave us if she wishes. In passing over the executive power to an Irish Parliament we only increase the difficulty of retaining Ireland. We shall alienate the loyal part of the population, who will regard themselves as betrayed. The necessity of reconquest will remain, but the evils of it and the bloodshed to be occasioned by it will be infinitely enhanced. Such respect for law and order as exists in Ireland is entirely due to English authority. Remove it, and the old anarchy will and must return. If the Home Rule Bill is passed there will be a dangerous and desperate war, in which other countries may take part who would gladly see our power broken." In Mr. Froude's opinion, there would be war between England and Ireland, as well as between Ulster and the South. His last sentence is curiously confirmed by the Irish Daily Independent, which says: – "What England forgets is the fact that when next Ireland fights she will not fight alone." This is not a warning, like the prophecy of Mr. Froude, it is a threat, for the Independent is not only a Nationalist, but an intensely anti-English paper. Another great historian, Mr. Lecky, thus expresses himself: – "The Parliament Mr. Gladstone proposes to set up would be in violent hostility to the richest and most industrious portion of the community. It is regarded with horror by nearly every man who is a leader of industry in Ireland. All the great names in Irish finance, manufacture, and trade are against it, and the men who would undoubtedly lead it are men whom Mr. Gladstone not long ago described with great justice as preaching the doctrine of public plunder." The state of feeling here indicated could have but one result; but Mr. Lecky is still more precise. "The assertion that Irish Catholics have never shown any jealousy of Irish Protestants is of a kind which I find it difficult to characterise with proper moderation. Jealousy, unhappily, is far too feeble a word to describe adequately the fierce reciprocal animosity which has dislocated Ireland for centuries. It blazed into a furious flame in the religious wars of Elizabeth, in the great rebellion of 1642, in the Jacobite struggle of 1689, in the religious war into which the rebellion of 1798 speedily degenerated. These facts are about as conspicuous in the history of Ireland as Magna Charta and the Commonwealth in the history of England. No one who knows Ireland will deny that the policy of Mr. Gladstone has contributed more than any other single cause to revive and deepen the divisions which every good Irishman deplores." Mr. Lecky believes that history repeats itself, and that the establishment of an Irish Parliament would lead to a great Irish convulsion, similar to those which he refers. My experience among Irish Churchmen convinces me that their feeling is understated in the petition signed by nearly fifteen thousand select vestrymen, and adopted by the general Synod, "That we regard the measure as fraught with peril to our civil and religious liberties, which are our prized inheritance; that conflicts of interest and collisions of authority would create a condition of frequent irritation and intolerable strain." The Methodists in full Conference gave it as their opinion "That in the judgment of this committee the bill, if it were to become law, so far from being a message of peace to Ireland, would be a most fruitful occasion of distressing discord and strife; that class would be arrayed against class and party against party with a virulence now rare and unknown; and that the inevitable result would be the overturning of all order and good government." What does this mean if not civil war? Be it understood that the existing feeling is now being demonstrated by appeal to the most reliable authorities, all speaking under a due sense of responsibility, and therefore with a studied moderation. The Presbyterians, a numerous and powerful body, speaking in the General Assembly, after declaring that the proposed measure imperils their civil and religious liberties, and expressing their determined opposition to an Irish Legislature and Executive, controlled by men "marching through rapine to the dismemberment of the Empire," whom a Special Commission found to be guilty of a criminal Conspiracy, and who invented, supported, and tried to justify the Land League, the Plan of Campaign, and boycotting – after this preamble, the Presbyterians declare that the bill is "calculated to embitter the hostility of conflicting creeds and parties in Ireland." The United Presbyterian Church of Scotland resolved at a meeting of its Irish Presbytery "that Home Rule would greatly intensify the antagonism now existing between the two peoples inhabiting Ireland." The Quakers come out pretty strong. They first ask to be believed. They hope that Englishmen will give credence to the sincerity of their convictions and the disinterestedness of their motives, and then they say that Home Rule "cannot fail to be disastrous to Ireland, and must tend to perpetuate and intensify the strife and discord which we have so long lamented and which we earnestly desire, so far as in us lies, to mitigate and allay." These protests are not all from Ulster. Every Grand Jury in Ireland has expressed itself in similar terms. The leading mercantile men of the three southern provinces of Ireland have declared in writing that "the Bill of the Government throws amongst us a new apple of discord, and plunges Ireland again into a state of political and party ferment." Pages of quotation might be added. But if those already adduced are not sufficient to satisfy my readers as to the feeling of the Irish Unionist party, they would hardly be persuaded though one rose from the dead.

The feeling of the other party is still stronger, and has been so often and openly expressed as to stand in no need of proof. Mr. Dillon has threatened to "manage Ulster;" and others have over and over again declared that the Protestant settlers are not Irishmen, and therefore have no right in the country. The lower classes of Irish Nationalists regard an Irish Legislature as an instrument to secure ascendency and plunder. The ruling idea is loot. The Unionists are determined at all costs to maintain religious equality and to hold their own. In Ulster masters and men, landlords and tenants, are of one mind. They do not bluster and brag. Those who represent them as rowdies do them grievous wrong. They are sober, thrifty, industrious, pious. In character they resemble Cromwell's Puritans, or the Scottish Covenanters of old, and no wonder, for they are of the same stock. They are by nature kindly and peaceful, but they become dangerous indeed on the points of liberty, religion, and property. We can partly judge their future by their past. In the dark and troublous days of rebellion they held the country for England, established a police, did for Ireland all that Government neglected to do, and then, having restored order, the small but mighty minority threw aside their arms and went back to their work. They are before everything industrial. Wars and rumours of wars they detest, as injurious to trade, as well as to higher interests. But when they take off their coats they always win. They put into their efforts, whether in war or peace, such a strenuous determination, such an unwavering resolution to succeed, that they become invincible. They have the confidence inspired by invariable success. Their opponents have the flabbiness and the lack of self-reliance resulting from seven hundred years of whining and querulous complaint. If Mr. Gladstone were to offer complete separation to-morrow the Irish leaders dare not take it. They know what would happen if Ulster took the field. Spite of their boasting, Dillon & Co. know full well that their vaunted numbers would avail them naught.

The venerable William Arthur, a Nonconformist minister, says: – "We will not be put under a Parliament in Dublin. The Imperial franchise and all which that guarantees is our birthright. No man shall take it from us. We will never sell it. If Englishmen and Scotchmen will not let us live and die in the freedom we were born to, they will have to come and kill us. On that ground stands the strongest party in Ireland. For as sure as the Home Rule party is the larger, so surely is the Unionist party the stronger. Ask any military man who has spent a few years in the country. Settle the Irish question by putting the stronger party under the weaker! You would only change a count of heads into a trial of strength. Instead of the polling-booth, where nothing counts but heads, you would set for the two parties another trysting place. There brains count, education counts, purses count, habits of hard work count, habits of command and habits of obedience count, habits of success count, delight in overcoming difficulties count, northern tenacity counts, and there are other things which I do not mention that would count. Let not the two parties be summoned to that trysting place!"

During my visit to Belfast I had exceptional opportunities of ascertaining the probabilities of armed resistance to the authority of a Dublin Parliament. I visited what might fairly be called the Ulster War Department, and there saw regular preparation for an open campaign, the arrangements being under the most able and expert superintendence. The tables were covered with documents connected with the sale and purchase of rifles and munitions of war. One of them set forth the particulars of a German offer of two hundred and forty-five thousand Mauser rifles, the arm lately discarded by the Prussian Government, with fifty million cartridges. As I had frequent opportunities of observing the manufacture of a hundred and fifty thousand of these weapons by the National Arms and Ammunition Company of Sparkbrook, I noted the present quotation, which was 16s. each, the cartridges to be thrown in for nothing. Another offer referred to a hundred and forty-nine thousand stand of arms with thirty million cartridges. There were numerous offers from Birmingham, and a large consignment of rifles and bayonets were about to be delivered in Ireland, the entire freight of a small steamer, at a place which I was then forbidden to mention, but which I may now say was Portaferry. An enormous correspondence was submitted to me in confidence, and I was surprised to see how deep and sincere was the sympathy of the working men of England, who with gentlemen of position and influence, and rifle volunteers by thousands were offering their aid in the field should the bill become law. I saw a letter from a distinguished English soldier with an offer of five hundred pounds and two hundred men. Money was coming in plentifully, and all the correspondence was unsought. The office had over fifty thousand pounds in hand, and promises for more than half a million. The forces at that moment, organised and drilled, numbered 164,614, all duly enrolled and pledged to act together anywhere and at any time, many of them already well armed, and the remainder about to be furnished with modern weapons. The Government was becoming nervous. An order from headquarters required a complete survey of the three barracks of Belfast, with an exhaustive report as to their defensive capabilities. Plans of existing musketry loopholes were to be made, and commanding officers were to state if it would be advisable to add to them. Suggestions were invited, and Mr. Morley, who at that very moment was telling Parliament that no precautions were being taken, wanted to know if the said barracks could be held against an organised force of civilians, arriving unexpectedly, and when Tommy Atkins was taking his walks abroad. At the same time, military officers were being secretly sworn in as magistrates. Does this look like the fear of civil war? These statements, made in the Gazette five months ago, have not been contradicted. The rank and file of the English Home Rule party know nothing of this – and by what their priestly allies would call "invincible ignorance" they may be excused their inability to believe in stern resistance to anything. The party of surrender are totally incapable of understanding that men exist who would lay down their lives for a principle. Mr. Gladstone and his Items, like the Irish leaders and their dupes, are easily overmastered. You have only to stand up to them, and they curl up like mongrel curs. But for this fact were would be no Home Rule Bill. Of the two parties the Irish were the stoutest, and the weakest went to the wall. The English Home Rulers cannot conceive that their conquerors could be easily beaten, or even that men can be found to meet them on the field. On the contrary, the men of Ulster who know these heroes hold them in deepest contempt, and in the event of an appeal to arms would treat them as so many mice. Spite of their Army of Independence, the Nationalists tacitly admit this, and would defer separation until they have first by legislative enactments driven away "the English garrison," or compelled Ulster in self-defence to declare against English rule. And, strange to say, they propose to use to this end the force of English arms. They calculate on the resistance of Ulster as a measure of assistance to their own ultimate purposes. "All we have to do is to stand by while British soldiers shoot them down like dogs." That is their expectation, as expressed by one of themselves. Their plans are well hid. But "The best-laid schemes o' mice and men Gang aft agley," as the priest-governed schemers may find to their cost.