1829. j Irish Priesls in particular: 505 



fare against the spirit of the age. The commissioners were desirous of 

 arranging a plan of education upon a system of mutual accommodation, 

 so that the children of Catholic parents might be made to participate in 

 the advantages resulting from the establishment of parochial schools. 

 The Catholic bishops could not of course openly avow their invincible 

 hatred to this approach towards the civilization of their flocks — for it 

 was no more ; but they determined upon throwing in its way all the 

 difficulties they could devise. Accordingly, their evidence was a tissue 

 of perplexities, sometimes appearing to favour the scheme, and at other 

 times suggesting amendments ; but terminating in a demand of indirect 

 concessions, that filled the Commissioners' Report to government with 

 such illogical reasoning and hopeless theories, that the matter was at last 

 abandoned in despair, or left — as parliamentary schemes of improvement 

 are usually left — to be taken up at leisure. Of that Commission and its 

 results, we cannot speak but in terms of reprobation. The men appointed 

 to investigate the subject were unqualified for their task, and carried 

 with them the prejudices of both sides. No man of either party ever 

 expected that a union of opinion could have been accomplished amongst 

 them. But the country was mystified, and large sums of the public 

 money expended ; which is the total amount of the benefit derived from 

 their labours. 



Considering the industrious operations of the priest?iood, it is not 

 strange that the Irish peasantry shoidd be servile and debased. They 

 really have no intelligence beyond that natural acuteness and mother- 

 wit with which nature has gifted them, and which even priestcraft can- 

 not eradicate. But the temptations by which they are surrounded 

 render that acuteness a dangerous quality ; and afford them oppor- 

 tunities of turning it to the worst account ; and they avail themselves 

 liberally of the accident. Not alone must we condemn the priests for 

 what they do, but for what they do not do. When we contrast the clean- 

 liness, decency, and good habits of the English, with the sloth, gross- 

 ness, and bad habits of the Irish, we cannot omit observing that the 

 lault lies with the priests who are, or ought to be, the moral police of 

 the country. The Irish funeral is a scene of uproar, drunkenness, and 

 riot: an English funeral is a scene of decorum, decency, and quiet 

 piety. Who is to blame for this ? The priest who mingles in the 

 unholy revel, and chooses that moment of unnatural exultation for the 

 collection of his eleemosynary tribute-money. Why does not the priest 

 reform these savage and disgraceful customs ? Because his interest is 

 bound up in their continuance ; because he subsists by the utter depre- 

 dation of his species ; and because he has not enough of virtue to sacri- 

 fice his own views to the good of his fellow-creatures. Then there are 

 what are called months-mines dinners (the phrase is not intelligible to an 

 an English reader, nor do I consider myself sufficiently profound to 

 attempt its translation) ; these are periodical celebrations, when all the 

 priests of a neighbourhood are invited to a feast, which is partly reli- 

 gious, and partly festive. The mingling of devotion and debauchery is 

 in admirable keeping with the whole system. Here the jolly Father 

 Tom, or Father Pat, of the wondering family, grows jocose witli the 

 children, and Uiwdry with the ladies ; sips wliiskey with a leer ; ami 

 Sanctifies tlie meats and the liquors with droll sayings and funny stories'. 

 A gentleman who has been accustomed to good society can scarcely con- 

 ceive the rih.ild twaddle of the |>riests on these occasions. I may, 



MM. New Scries.— Vos.. Vlll. No. 4?. 3 T 



