ticular sept was in danger of total ruin, from the victory of some English forces, their neighbours were persuaded to come to their rescue, and for what? "for the sake of the Irish language," for so the manuscript annals express it, as quoted by Leland. As septs they might be distinct as the billows, as to the language, they were one as the sea; and whatever may be said to the contrary, this attachment does remain, and in all its power, nay it is common to all the Celtic tribes. There is a fascination in the language itself, and though there were not, the treatment it has received is sufficient to account for the present feeling; but this very attachment may be turned to the best account, and there is no occasion for fighting with it. Indeed it has lately been remarked by a French author, that "there seems to be in the language of the Celtic populations a principle of duration which sets time and the efforts of man at defiance."* I am inclined to go much farther than this, and apply the remark to any colloquial dialect whatever, when suffering under violent or abusive treatment. So it was with our own English or Anglo-Saxon; and the other instances adduced prove the fact. If we are to believe the Scriptures, the mysterious power which put an end to the erection of Babel was evidently an interposition, and in favour of man, though in what way I need not at present specify; but from the moment of that confusion, and often since, language, an instrument in the hands of Omnipotence, has been invincible, and though monarchs have repeatedly employed all their power to abolish one, it has been in vain. In no other country in the world has the experiment been so often attempted and so pertinaciously pursued as in our own, and the consequence is, that our history holds out to other nations a demonstrative proof, (whatever may be our philosophical theory respecting the origin, the formation and progress of language), that once spoken, once it is in use, language is an instrument which it is above the power of man as a conqueror to subdue. To one remark, therefore, already made, we are constrained to return and adhere;—that if any colloquial dialect is to decline, and the language spoken in its vicinity is to gain the ascendency, the most direct and effectual

*Thierry's Norman Conquest, vol. II. p. 273.

process is that of teaching to read the colloquial dialect itself, leaving the rest to God and nature. To an Irishman in particular, or an Irish boy, you can then say-" Now you stand on the first spoke of the ladder of knowledge, but one effort more,only one spoke higher, and you are equal to the English around you.”

In conclusion, let the Native Irish in general have only one fair and unfettered opportunity of starting from this point, and it will soon be seen whether many among them will not proceed far beyond the narrow limits of their native tongue.

SECTION V.

THE IRISH LANGUAGE,

With proofs of the extent to which it is spoken at present, or used daily by the Natives as the natural vehicle of their thoughts; and this extent accounted for or explained.

IN Britain it has for ages been a favourite idea with some, that the perfection of territorial unity can only be attained by uniformity of language; but it is still true, that there is not a kingdom in Europe where only one language is spoken. Even within the narrow limits of Denmark there is German as well as Danish, and in Sweden we find Norse and Finnish as well as Swedish, while the monarch of the day, like our Norman Conqueror of ancient time, speaks French. In France there are three if not four languages, independently of French proper. In Spain and Prussia there are at least three, perhaps four in each. In Austria five or six,—and the Czar of Russia, whether his kingdom in any sense resembles Nebuchadnezzar's image or not, like him, in addressing his subjects, may truly say, "The King, unto all people, nations, and languages." As for the united kingdom of Britain and Ireland, within its own comparatively little boundary, from before the days of Cæsar until now, there has always existed diversity of language. At present there are five colloquial dialects, and in some of the early ages such diversity has existed, owing to the entrance or invasion of other tribes, that the tongue once spoken by different

tribes, in different parts of Britain and Ireland, even still engages the research and the discussion of the antiquarian.*

Meanwhile, if the subjects of the British crown at home are ever destined to be in fact populus unius labii,' it seems strange that so many political advisers have been so long in perceiving, that the end, if attainable, is certainly never to be reached by a direct attack, but by fetching a compass, not by legislative enactment, but the exercise of humanity. For certainly it is not under the influence of a disposition which led to our denominating the dialects spoken by the subdued tribes, barbarous, and in France to that of patois, and then coldly dismissing the subject, that these parts can ever contribute their share to the strength and unity of the empire. Such feelings, it is to be hoped, are now rapidly declining in our own country: many, indeed, as if conscious of past harshness and injustice, begin to feel a peculiar interest in the actual condition of these neglected populations; and abroad, the same wise and considerate humanity is now discoverable. "In place of what we call patois, we find complete and regular languages; and that which appears to us now but as a want of civilization, and a resistance to the progress of improvement, assumes, in past ages, the aspect of original manners, and a patriotic attachment to ancient institutions. It were falsifying history, to introduce into it a philosophical contempt for every departure from the uniformity of existing civilization, and to consider those nations as alone worthy of honourable mention, to whose

"The cause of the obscurity into which these populations have sunk," says Monsieur Thierry, " is not that they have been less worthy to find historians than the rest indeed most of them are remarkable for an originality of character which powerfully distinguishes them from the great nations with which they have been incorporated." But, to use in part the language of the same author, the disposition of historians to go at once from the conquered to the conquerors,-being more willing to enter the camp of the triumphant than that of the fallen,-or to represent the conquest as completed so soon as the conqueror had proclaimed himself master. Each of these tendencies has contributed to the mystery and confusion in which the antiquities of Britain have been involved. Hence, to notice only modern times, in scarcely one of the authors who have treated of the history of England, do we find any mention of Saxons after the battle of Hastings, and the coronation of William: and, I may add, hence the terms English and Irish,' in the Irish history of the twelfth century, (if not the thirteenth), although Ireland, correctly speaking, was then invaded by the Norman-French, and the AngloSaxons in their train.

names the chance of events has attached, for the present and for the future, the idea of that civilization."*

As to the Irish tongue, one of those which, under the influence of something like this philosophical contempt,' has been often denominated ́ barbarous',—-several remarks with regard to the language itself will be found in the appendix ; a question, however, which, whatever happen to be the opinion of the reader, has no connexion with the point now before us, or at least no practical bearing upon it. Wishing, therefore, to avoid here every thing of a disputable or theoretical nature, we proceed to notice the extent of the Irish language as now spoken.

When contemplating the present condition of Ireland, this is a subject of vital importance, and it is one which should certainly no longer be treated in the manner in which it has been for the last two hundred years, but especially during the eighteenth century. It was during that century that all reasoning upon the subject was condemned, and that every statement of facts was either hushed into silence or treated with the most perfect indifference. If at any moment the subject chanced to cross the path of any writer, the blindest policy passed for sound wisdom, and the wildest theories as to abolishing the language were vented with perfect confidence of success.

"I am deceived," said Dean Swift, "if any thing hath more contributed to prevent the Irish from being tamed than this encouragement of their language, which might easily be abolished, and become a dead one in half an age, with little expense and less trouble."+ Again he says-" It would be a noble achievement to abolish the Irish language in the kingdom, so far, at least, as to oblige all the natives to speak only English on every occasion of business, in shops, markets, fairs, and other places of dealing: yet I am wholly deceived if this might not be effectually done in less than half an age, and at a very trifling expense; for such I look upon a tax to be of only six thousand pounds a year to accomplish so great a work.”‡

Dr Woodward, the Bishop of Cloyne, after having stated that "the difference of language is a very general obstacle to any intercourse with the people," adds, in a note,—“ If it be ask

*Thierry's Norman Conquest, Introduction, p. ii. 4to, vol. viii. p. 263.

Swift's Works, 18mo, vol. xiii. p. 66.

+ Swift's Works,

G