THE SOUTH MEATH ELECTION. T HE Irish Unionist Alliance has published,
not a day too soon, a pamphlet containing the full text of the Bishop of Meath's Pastoral, the most important portions of the evidence given at the trial of the South Meath Election Petition, passages of special significance from the speech of Mr. T. M. Healy—the counsel. employed by the Clerical party—and the judgment of Mr. Justice O'Brien. The pamphlet can be obtained for threepence from the Irish Unionist Alliance, Palace Chambers, Westminster, and no one who wishes to understand the present position of the Irish Question should omit to secure a copy. There is no fear of any who obtain the pamphlet finding it dull. The evidence is so dramatic in its incidents, and so Irish and so racy in its language, that the most lukewarm of politicians will find it readable and entertaining. For the thoroughgoing student of politics, the pamphlet on the South Meath Election is quite in- valuable, for it affords answers to many of the most perplexing questions which occur in the Irish controversy. It meets, for instance, the question, " How far are the Irish Protestants justified in declaring that they would not be safe under a system of Home-rule worked by the Irish priests P" We have always held, and we hold still, that the Protestants should have nothing to fear from Roman Catholicism as such,—that is, from true Roman Catho- licism, from Roman Catholicism properly understood and properly practised. The evidence given at the South Meath Petition shows, however, that it is necessary to place considerable limitations upon the belief that Irish Roman Catholicism is in no sense a political danger, and that the Irish Protestants have no cause for alarm. They, no doubt, are apt to express their fears too broadly, and to attack Roman Catholicism in general when they should only attack its Irish manifestation; but that they have good ground for alarm is obvious. If all Irish Bishops and priests were good Catholics, the asser- tion that Home-rule would mean priest-rule would be unreasonable. Unfortunately, however, they are not all good Catholics, and hence the danger is imminent and actual. Many Irish Bishops and priests attempt to influence and control the actions and opinions of their fellow-countrymen in regard to subjects in no sense spiritual or moral, and by means which are entirely un- justifiable and often grossly illegal. They do this, too, not because it is enjoined upon them by their religious beliefs, but simply out of their furious and narrow partisan- ship, and because they are determined to brook no sort of opposition in Ireland. Under these circumstances, the Irish Protestant may be pardoned for saying It is idle to say that Roman Catholicism does not sanction such acts. If that is so, it only makes the matter worse, for it shows that many Irish Bishops and priests are so reckless and so tyrannical that they are willing to disobey their religion in order to force their will on the people of Ireland. Just now they are telling the Irish peasant that he will be lost everlastingly if he supports the Parnellites, in spite of the fact that they have no sort of religious sanction for doing so. How can I tell that, under Home-rule, they may not, with an equal disregard of the religious truths they ought to profess, declare that those who do not support some measure injurious to Pro- testants will be guilty of mortal sin ? I am not answered by appeal to an ideal Catholicism. I must take the Irish priest as I find him, and I find him often willing to say anything, and do anything, when he wishes to force his co-religionists into a particular course of action.' It is difficult to deny the force of this view, when one holds in one's hand the evidence of the South Meath Petition. Remember, we are not looking here at a picture of Irish Roman Catholic priests and their ways, painted by Orangemen. The men who testified to Clerical Coercion were one and all Roman Catholics; the counsel who arranged the case were Catholics also ; and Catholic judges commented on the evidence, and declared what weight it should receive. In a word, the element of Pro- testant prejudice and misrepresentation is entirely elimi- nated. Again, some of the most important pieces of evidence consist in statements made by the priests themselves in the course of cross-examination. Whatever conclusions, then, are drawn from the South Meath Petition, are drawn from testimony of the first order of trustworthiness,—testimony which cannot be written down as unworthy of credence and of no authority. Take, for example, Bishop Nulty's Pastoral, of which the pamphlet gives a ver- batim reprint. Here, at any rate, is evidence which cannot be assailed. This extraordinary document, were the subject not one too serious for laughing, would cause the reader no little amusement by reason of the naïve way in which, more Hibernico, it hits round on all sides. It begins by declaring that, if Parnellism were merely a political question, the Bishop would not interfere. But Parnellism is, " beyond all doubt, an essentially and an in- tensely religious question as well, and one that will vitally influence your faith, your religious feelings, and the moral obligations and duties to which, as Christians and Catholics, you are conscientiously bound. On Parnellism, under that point of view, I, as a Bishop, and as a suc- cessor of the Apostles, have a Divine right from God to instruct you and to teach you, and you are bound by a Divine precept to listen to me and to learn the doctrines and the religious principles I teach you." After a great deal of denunciation of Mr. Parnell, comes a very curious passage, in which the Bishop declares that he has " stronger, deeper, and much sterner antipathies and dislikes to the anti- Catholic and anti-national character of the living organi- sation, or party, into which Parnellism has developed." Upon this follows a long, impassioned, and somewhat vague dissertation upon the Apostolic succession, intended to show that, as the men of former days " received their enlightenment and their faith from the preaching and teach- ing of the Apostles, so the men of the present age, and of every age to the end, do, and will receive their faith from our preaching, and that of our successors,till the consumma- tion of the world," This is apparently intended to lead to the conclusion that Parnellism is a sin, not only because it was founded by a person who was proved to have com- mitted adultery, but because the Bishops have condemned Parnellism, and because the Parnellites have defied the Bishops. The steps in the argument are confused ; but this is apparently the meaning of the following passage :— " Now, Parnellism strikes at the very root and saps the very foun- dations of Catholic faith. I have already proved, I trust to your satisfaction, that Parnellism is much more than a political ques- tion, and that it is an essentially and an intensely religious question as well. All the successors of the Apostles in this country—that is to say, the twenty-nine Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland— have solemnly warned and taught their respective flocks that Parnollism was unlawful and unholy. That it was in distinct, direct, and essential antagonism with the principles of Christian morality, and even dangerous to their faith as Catholics, and con. sequontly that they should shun and avoid it. They who refuse to accept that teaching or that principle on the unanimous authority of the whole Irish Hierarchy, deprive themselves of every rational ground or motive for believing in the truth of any of the other doc- trines of their religion. Because it is solely on the authority which they here despise and decry that they know, or possibly can know, that any one of those doctrines was ever revealed at all by God Almighty. If the Bishops can mislead or deceive their flocks on this particular doctrine, what is to prevent their doing exactly the same in the case of any of the other doctrines which they are continually teaching ? Invincible ignorance may undoubtedly excuse many of the misguided but well-intentioned men who still cling to Parnellism, but no intelligent or well-informed man can continue and remain a Catholic as long as he elects to cling to Parnollism."
The passage which ends the Pastoral, and in which the Bishop declares that "the dying Parnellite himself 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 imme- diately follow it," has been often quoted, and we will, therefore, pass straight to the evidence. One portion of the evidence will be exceedingly shocking to all sincere Roman Catholics, and will show how useless it is to rely upon the true doctrine and practice of the Roman Church, as a protection in Ireland against Priestly Coercion. The case is one in which the sacrament was actually refused to a voter, because he would not abandon the Parnellite side. Michael McKenna, a Parnellite, deposed as follows, in regard to a conversation he had with the priest after his confession, but while in the confessional-box :- "Witness: He asked me was I satisfied as to the course I was taking in politics. He knew me, of course, intimately, and knew the part that I was taking.—Mr. Justice O'Brien : Had you left the confessional at that time P—No, my lord. I said I was per- fectly satisfied. That I believed I was pursuing the same course as I always followed in politics. He told me that I ought to be reasonable, and pay some respect to the opinions of others who knew, or ought to know, more than I knew. He told me to pray to God to direct me, and that I might return to him in about a week or tan days. Mr. Drummond : Did he say anything about the sacrament P—He told me that he would not give me absolution then, Sir. Mr. Justice O'Brien : And was it after that he said to return to him in ten days ?—After that. Then I told him that I was fully convinced that I was right, just the same as if I was before God. These are the very exact words that I used. Then he told me that he could not admit me to the sacrament. So then I left."
Another instance of canvassing in the confessional was that related by Mr. John McKenna. It was he who, not being a very strong politician himself, was almost torn in pieces between a Parnellite wife and an Anti-Parnellite priest. This is his account of his troubles
After going home I sat for a while, and then told my wife that Father Behan had asked me again in the confession box, and that I thought I would go with him. 'It would not turn me,' says I, and, in the name of God, will you allow me go with him ? ' `Have you promised him,' says she. I have not,' says I. If you did,' says she, you mighn't face me' (loud laughter), and she would not let me go with him."
Before we leave the subject of the South Meath Petition, we must make one more very significant quotation. It shows that the representatives of the Irish priests maize no attempt to say either that the priests went too far in the excitement of the election, or that they were acting not so much as representatives of the Irish Church as individual politicians. On the contrary, they glory in the part played by the priests at South Meath. Here is what Mr. Healy said on behalf of the defence :— " They might view with jealousy the concerted action of an organised priesthood, and enact laws to punish that priesthood ; they might view with horror the doctrine which imported a binding sanction on the minds of the people to listen to the teaching of the pastorate—let them root out that Church, they had the power ; but so long as the State sanctioned toleration, so long as it was indifferent to the doctrine that was preached, so long the question of the truth or the untruth of that doctrine would not be questioned in a court of law, but so far as the Catholic Church was concerned, it would be a question for the Court of Rome."
If this means anything, it means that under Home-rule electoral intimidation when the priests are the intimidators will not be regarded as intimidation.
Previous page
