Penal Laws: Impact Exaggerated

convert

Just wondering what you think about the penal laws which were introduced in both Britain and Ireland in the seventeenth and eighteenth century? Is their impact over exaggerated or were they a really 'black time' for catholics and presbyterians?

WAGS

convert wrote: »

Just wondering what you think about the penal laws which were introduced in both Britain and Ireland in the seventeenth and eighteenth century? Is their impact over exaggerated or were they a really 'black time' for catholics and presbyterians?

King Charles I wasn't too keen on the Puritans either.
Cromwell, a Puritan butchered all who weren't Puritans.
In Ireland's case, the Irish like the Scots had a habit of siding with England's enemies, in particular the French and Spanish so it received special attention.
To answer question directly and in my humble opinion; I don't think the impact on people who suffered under these laws was over exaggerated at all. In England and Ireland Catholics in particular suffered, but take a look at mainland Europe to see who else was suffering under similar laws introduced by Catholic Kings and Queens.
England's problems began when Henry VIII started thinking with what was between his legs. He and his followers didn't like to be told by a foreign power, the Vatican, what he could and could not do. Henry's troubles with the Vatican also provided a major opening to the new Protestant movement.
However, religion is often the excuse, but retaining absolute power over everything and everyone by the elite few is always the real reason behind oppression, just ask King James II.

Fratton Fred

WAGS wrote: »

King Charles I wasn't too keen on the Puritans either.
Cromwell, a Puritan butchered all who weren't Puritans.
In Ireland's case, the Irish like the Scots had a habit of siding with England's enemies, in particular the French and Spanish so it received special attention.
To answer question directly and in my humble opinion; I don't think the impact on people who suffered under these laws was over exaggerated at all. In England and Ireland Catholics in particular suffered, but take a look at mainland Europe to see who else was suffering under similar laws introduced by Catholic Kings and Queens.
England's problems began when Henry VIII started thinking with what was between his legs. He and his followers didn't like to be told by a foreign power, the Vatican, what he could and could not do. Henry's troubles with the Vatican also provided a major opening to the new Protestant movement.
However, religion is often the excuse, but retaining absolute power over everything and everyone by the elite few is always the real reason behind oppression, just ask King James II.

That's a good point. What the English/British monarchy and later parliament feared more than anything was revolution. The feeling was that the catholics would unite with their european bretheren and revolt against the Anglican ruling class (Whether that was nobility or parliament). The fact that revolution had occured in other empires and the persecution of protestants had been carried out as well added to this paranoia.

It was mentioned on another thread that in England the persecution of protestants is not taught in English schools, that is not the case. I remember going on fields trips as a kid and visiting manor houses that had been rebuilt after burning to the ground because the owner was a catholic and I have been to several old houses where we were shown a Priests Hole:eek::D

ejmaztec

Fratton Fred wrote: »

been to several old houses where we were shown a Priests Hole:eek::D

One of my history teachers in England was an Irish priest, who was asked about priest's holes by some sniggering little sh1t at the back of the class. For some reason we had a discussion about the American War Of Independence instead, just after the lad got sent out of the room.

il gatto

Almost impossible to over estimate their effect really. Witholding education and debarring from the professions the vast majority of the country, as well as highly restrictive property rights and banning a native language is a pretty impressive list of crippling circumstances. Head hunting priests was the icing on the cake. Left behing some nice buildings and a country which missed the industrial revolution and was third world in comparison to the rest of Europe (with exceptions, of course).

convert

il gatto wrote: »

Almost impossible to over estimate their effect really. Witholding education and debarring from the professions the vast majority of the country, as well as highly restrictive property rights and banning a native language is a pretty impressive list of crippling circumstances. Head hunting priests was the icing on the cake. Left behing some nice buildings and a country which missed the industrial revolution and was third world in comparison to the rest of Europe (with exceptions, of course).

Which statute banned the Irish language? Also, when you mention 'head hunting' priests do you mean that literally, or do you mean that priests who were in the country 'illegally' were to be 'banished' from the country?

Btw, I'm curious about your point about the industrial revolution. Have you any more details on it and why the lack of one here was due to the penal laws?

brianthebard

Yeah I would also like to know what statute was connected to the language. also regards education, it wasn't banned per se, only education by priests. (maybe they had the right idea). Also education wasn't exactly widespread at the time of the laws anyway, so its not like they made a formal education system illegal. I also think linking the penal laws to the lack of industrialisation in this country is misjudged at best and downright silly at worst-there are dozens of other factors which had far greater significance.
As wags pointed out, put in the context of the period it was a fairly standard set of laws. Does that justify it? No. But then the penal laws were also discriminatory against all other protestant sects, although not quite to the same degree. Religious oppression was all the rage at the time, and not confined to Ireland or Britain. Hell the reformation and the ensuing religious politics was responsible for emigration, wars, genocide and expulsions from the 1600s to the 1950s. Put in the context of something like the expulsion of the Jews either from Britain in 1290 by Edward I, Spain in 1492, or Russia in the nineteenth century, etc, etc, etc, the penal laws look somewhat less harsh.

convert

As brianthebard says, education itself wasn't outlawed - it was only a 'catholic' education which was forbidden. Schools which had a catholic teacher were illegal, as were catholics going abroad to receive a catholic education (though, as we know, many catholics went abroad illegally). The thinking behind this was 'if they catholics can't get an education from teachers of their own religion, then they'll probably (or some, at least) will take an education in a protestant school'. Many initiatives were also introduced in a bid to get catholic children into protestant schools, such as scholarships to poor catholic families or orphans to attend state boarding schools whereby they would receive an education (well, a very basic one which would give them some grounding so they could enter a trade), and education in the protestant religion, thus 'taking' people from the catholic religion and strengthening the protestant religion.

il gatto

Outlawing catholic educators was tantamount to outlawing education to catholics, who held their religion very dear compared to most catholics today. By "head-hunting" priests, I obviously meant the apprehension and banishment and crippling financial punishments for anyone found to be harbouring clergy. The notion of having children attend the established church's education system (as it was) was heresy to them.
Without a vote to influence politics, without land to provide income (due to restrictive inheritence laws), without access to legal advice and with the majority of the people partially literate or illiterate, how could industry flourish? It's hardley coincidental that Ireland's most industrialised region was the north east. Even Dublin, the second city of the empire at the time, did not succeed as a center of industry in the way Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow etc. did.
Because whatever education a catholic generally received was from some random priest or Jesuit, the learning tended towards Latin, French, Literature and theology. Hardly the stuff great engineers or entrepreneurs were made of, and tended to be the sons of low merchants or squireens with little tendency or opportunity to succeed in the world of industry. And most industry needs a plethor of clerks, draughtsmen and accountants to succeed. None of which Ireland could provide in numbers relative to it's population in comparison to England. Obviously there were other factors, but an uneducated, disenfranchised population would have to rank as, if not the only reason, one of the main ones.
The resources Ireland did have was either exported in the raw or processed to a limited degree and fed industry elsewhere.
Misjudged or silly it may seem to you brianthebard, but I fail to see how the industrial revolution could have succeeded in Ireland under those set of circumstances. Furthermore, they were not a standard set of laws, other than the fondness for religious persecution of the time. Comparing persecutions from different times and places is a fruitless activity which has many platitudes and no answers. The only comparison worth making is those betwen the Roman Catholics and the Prebyterians who suffered a similar fate.
With regards the Irish language. I would've thought it obvious that seeing as no business of note, no legal procedings and no politics could take place in Irish and seeing as those who would've taught people how to read and write in that language were expelled, that any language would suffer as a result. And it did. It's a fact that Irish speaking as a first language declined drastically during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Religious oppression was all the rage at the time, and not confined to Ireland or Britain. Hell the reformation and the ensuing religious politics was responsible for emigration, wars, genocide and expulsions from the 1600s to the 1950s. Put in the context of something like the expulsion of the Jews either from Britain in 1290 by Edward I, Spain in 1492, or Russia in the nineteenth century, etc, etc, etc, the penal laws look somewhat less harsh.

When you consider the large hugeunot population in the south had undergone far more severe persecution, it is almost understandable why there would be a dislike of the catholic church and an attempt to turn people away from it in some parts.

il gatto

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When you consider the large hugeunot population in the south had undergone far more severe persecution, it is almost understandable why there would be a dislike of the catholic church and an attempt to turn people away from it in some parts.

The attempt to turn people away from it was the basis for the reformation and the catholic church's persecution of other religions and/or sects was a reactionary move. Chicken or egg scenario. Catholic church (not reknowned for enlightened tolerance) finds a schism in it's fold and then goes medieval on offshoots and opposition, thereby driving more people away in some cases.