Henry Brooke opens his 1760 Essay with a pointed anecdote: he encountered young gentlemen recently returned from Continental travels who, though ignorant of the religion, laws, learning, or languages of any country they had scampered through, affected a high contempt for their native Ireland. This encounter spurs Brooke to write a defense of his country, addressing both its ancient and modern state. The essay is dedicated to Matthew McNamara, a Limerick lawyer, and is framed as a patriotic contribution to correct the inattention of those who know other countries better than their own.

A Defense of Irish Civilization

Brooke structures his argument around three distinct eras: the peopling of Ireland, the arrival of Christianity, and the modern period under King George II. He dismisses pre-Milesian inhabitants as savages whose accounts are overcast with fable, but he vigorously defends the subsequent Irish contributions to European civilization. A key example is Dr. Moore, a Jacobite exile who, under Louis XIV, reformed the University of Paris by banishing "Entities, Quiddities, Sympathies, Antipathies, occult Qualities, substantial Forms, metaphysical Degrees, Categories, and all this unideal wordy Stuff" in favor of clear reasoning and experimental philosophy. Brooke claims Moore taught Boileau, Fontenelle, Montesquieu, and Rollin, thus crediting Ireland with restoring the great university. This passage reveals Brooke's strategy: he counters contempt for Ireland by asserting its historical influence on continental learning.

Penal Laws and the Case for Catholic Rights

Brooke devotes considerable attention to the penal laws against Roman Catholics, which he calls "unparallel'd Severity." He notes that under Queen Anne, additional acts against the growth of Popery precluded Catholics from leasing lands forfeited by their ancestors—lands lost through their "unremitting Endeavours" to support the Stuart line from which Anne herself descended. This ironic observation highlights the injustice as Brooke sees it: Catholics were punished for loyalty to the monarch's own family. The essay includes a section titled "The Farmer's Case of the Roman-Catholics of Ireland," suggesting a practical, economic argument for civil rights. Brooke's tone is indignant but measured, aiming to persuade rather than inflame.

A Catalogue of Loyalty and Service

Brooke supplies extensive lists of Irish families—Baggots, Sheridans, Creaghs, Plunkets, Neagles, Lallys, Mac Carthys, O Neils, O Connors, and many more—who served in the military annals of Germany, France, Spain, Flanders, Italy, Naples, and Russia. He quotes Dr. Mac en Crow's Latin epigram: "Genus acre Bello, Studiis Genus acre Minervae, Devotumque mori pro Rege, Fidêque tuendis" (a race fierce in war, fierce in the studies of Minerva, devoted to die for king and faith). This catalogue functions as evidence of Irish valor and learning abroad, countering the stereotype of barbarism. Brooke also names Sir Richard Neagle, James II's attorney-general, as a man of unshaken integrity, and Dr. Moore as a model of piety and learning. The lists are not merely ornamental; they are rhetorical proof of Irish contributions to European civilization.

Brooke's essay is a hybrid of historical argument, patriotic manifesto, and legal brief. Readers should note that the excerpts are incomplete; the full text likely develops the case for Catholic relief more fully. The essay's value lies in its specific, evidence-based claims about Irish influence on continental universities and armies, and its pointed critique of penal laws. Brooke writes as a native proud of his country, aiming to correct ignorance with concrete examples rather than abstract praise.