Ho `appears quite averse to the cant so prevalent with many

Ho `appears quite averse to the cant so prevalent with many of his cloth, he spoke rationally and earnestly and what he said was enforced by the evidence of manly intellect which sat visibly upon his brow.’48 Although he found that some clergymen were intellectually and morally impressive, he regarded most as merely demonstrating the inadequacy of institutionalized religion.TYNDALL’SCHANGING POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS ATTITUDESNone of Tyndall’s letters contain an extensive account of the Preston riot of 13 August 1842, when he witnessed the shooting by soldiers of striking cotton workers whose wages had been reduced owing to the economic downturn. Four strikers were killed and many wounded.49 A few days later he briefly informed his father that `the thing was confined to those working in the factories who were puffed into insurrection by the harangues of some Chartist delegates’.50 In line with his Conservative upbringing he accepted the use of force as legitimate and was insensitive to the rioters’ plight and to the aims of Chartism. Over the next few months, however, Tyndall’s political attitudes changed in response to the order (��)-BGB-3111 killings and also to other events. In particular, he was appalled by the factory system that he witnessed in Lancashire and by the poverty and oppression of the workers. Thus by–if not before–June 1843 he seems to have adopted a far more liberal, if not radical, political outlook. In a letter, which has not survived, he explained this significant change to his parents, who were clearly unsympathetic. Accordingly in his next letter he indicated that he understood that his parents–especially his mother–would `not relish’ his new outlook, adding `I shall make just one remark in connexion with our two last letters and that is that the God of protestantism never intended that it should be established by unjust means’ (emphasis added).51 In other words, Tyndall was challenging the morality of the Conservative Protestantism maintained by his family and especially by his `inflexible’ father. That worldview now seemed utterly immoral and he began examining his conscience, resulting in a much more liberal attitude not only in politics but also in religion. This personal change affected his attitude towards Catholics and Catholicism as he also questioned and consciously rejected the intense antipathy generally espoused by Irish Protestants. For example, after returning to Leighlin Bridge for an extended visit he attended church one Sunday early in 1844 and listened to a sermon by a Mr Cather, whom he described as `a bigotted anti-repealer’. This preacher had argued that `popery [was] at the bottom of it all’–all of Ireland’s social and political problems. Yet TyndallG. Cantornow firmly eschewed this conventional Protestant appraisal of Ireland’s ills and instead he argued that poverty–not TGR-1202 supplier popery–was a far better explanation of Daniel O’Connell’s success in mobilizing Catholics to participate in political agitation. Tyndall accepted that, like the exploited workers of Lancashire, the Catholic poor in Ireland were motivated by poverty in rising to challenge their oppressors.52 Another example of his changing attitude occurred in March 1847 when he was returning from Ireland after visiting his father, who was gravely ill. On board ship he encountered a `surprisingly clever’ young lady who `contended that Roman Catholics did not know the way of salvation’. His response was to endeavour `to loosen prejudice by adducing the stro.Ho `appears quite averse to the cant so prevalent with many of his cloth, he spoke rationally and earnestly and what he said was enforced by the evidence of manly intellect which sat visibly upon his brow.’48 Although he found that some clergymen were intellectually and morally impressive, he regarded most as merely demonstrating the inadequacy of institutionalized religion.TYNDALL’SCHANGING POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS ATTITUDESNone of Tyndall’s letters contain an extensive account of the Preston riot of 13 August 1842, when he witnessed the shooting by soldiers of striking cotton workers whose wages had been reduced owing to the economic downturn. Four strikers were killed and many wounded.49 A few days later he briefly informed his father that `the thing was confined to those working in the factories who were puffed into insurrection by the harangues of some Chartist delegates’.50 In line with his Conservative upbringing he accepted the use of force as legitimate and was insensitive to the rioters’ plight and to the aims of Chartism. Over the next few months, however, Tyndall’s political attitudes changed in response to the killings and also to other events. In particular, he was appalled by the factory system that he witnessed in Lancashire and by the poverty and oppression of the workers. Thus by–if not before–June 1843 he seems to have adopted a far more liberal, if not radical, political outlook. In a letter, which has not survived, he explained this significant change to his parents, who were clearly unsympathetic. Accordingly in his next letter he indicated that he understood that his parents–especially his mother–would `not relish’ his new outlook, adding `I shall make just one remark in connexion with our two last letters and that is that the God of protestantism never intended that it should be established by unjust means’ (emphasis added).51 In other words, Tyndall was challenging the morality of the Conservative Protestantism maintained by his family and especially by his `inflexible’ father. That worldview now seemed utterly immoral and he began examining his conscience, resulting in a much more liberal attitude not only in politics but also in religion. This personal change affected his attitude towards Catholics and Catholicism as he also questioned and consciously rejected the intense antipathy generally espoused by Irish Protestants. For example, after returning to Leighlin Bridge for an extended visit he attended church one Sunday early in 1844 and listened to a sermon by a Mr Cather, whom he described as `a bigotted anti-repealer’. This preacher had argued that `popery [was] at the bottom of it all’–all of Ireland’s social and political problems. Yet TyndallG. Cantornow firmly eschewed this conventional Protestant appraisal of Ireland’s ills and instead he argued that poverty–not popery–was a far better explanation of Daniel O’Connell’s success in mobilizing Catholics to participate in political agitation. Tyndall accepted that, like the exploited workers of Lancashire, the Catholic poor in Ireland were motivated by poverty in rising to challenge their oppressors.52 Another example of his changing attitude occurred in March 1847 when he was returning from Ireland after visiting his father, who was gravely ill. On board ship he encountered a `surprisingly clever’ young lady who `contended that Roman Catholics did not know the way of salvation’. His response was to endeavour `to loosen prejudice by adducing the stro.

Leave a Reply