second brother to the marquis of Ormond; and he had such an influence over his followers, that he kept them not only from murder, but even from plunder; his great care and noble disposition, being acknowledged even by his enemies.

"James, lord Dunboyne, hearing of the surprise of Fethard, by Theobald Butler, and being chief commander of the barony of Middlethyrde, by special grants made to some of his ancestors, for service performed to the crown of England, repaired thither the next day, and took on him the command of the town, dispersing the rabble, and placing in it a garrison, which he formed of the most substantial inhabitants of the place, and neighbourhood. He immediately set the English at liberty, restored them their goods, and sent them away in safety to Youghall, and other places, which they chose for their retreat. Two of these were clergymen, of whom Mr. Hamilton was, at his request, sent with his family to the countess of Ormond.

"Mr. Lowe, vicar of Cloyne, having been barbarously murdered at Fethard, by one James McHugh, and some accomplices, lord Ikerin, upon information given against him, committed him to prison, whence M'Hugh making an escape, fled to the country for some time; but returning, was seized again, confessed the fact, and was hanged for it, with two of his accomplices.

"Sir Richard Everet, bart. in the beginning of the rebellion, sent the richest of the English planters in his country, with their stock and

goods, into the English quarters. The poorer English, consisting of eighty-eight persons, he kept and maintained at his own charge till the middle of June, 1642; then conveyed them to Mitchel's-town, and when that place was afterwards taken by the Irish, he sent for some of those families that were very poor, and maintained them for a long time. As soon as the cessation was made, some of the poor tenants came back to him, and he settled and protected them on his lands, till Cromwell came into the country.

"When Birr surrendered to general Preston, in January 1642, the articles were faithfully performed; and the earl of Castlehaven, his lieutenant general, conveyed the garrison and inhabitants, to the number of eight hundred persons, in a long march of two or three days together, through the woods of Irregan, and waste countries, safe to Athy.”*

How can we account for the manifold misrepresentations of the Irish, and their transactions, especially during the civil war in 1641? From the first moment of the invasion, the barbarities, committed by the invaders, either to glut the vengeance of king Dermot, for plunder, or from innate cruelty, begat national hatred, and, consequently, misrepresentation. In the period of the civil war, that hatred amounted to a phrenzy, from the additional incentives of the hatred of popery and prelacy, adopted as the first article in the creed of the puritan faction; and their

* Carte's Ormond,

detestation of Irish loyalty to the reigning family, with whom they went to war. Borlase and

Temple wrote for the regicide faction; and could do nothing more pleasing to their masters, than to paint popery and Irishmen in as hideous forms as fiction could devise. Clarendon had injured them too much, by his share in the act of settlement, not to hate them, and endeavour, by misrepresentation, to clear his master Charles II. from the charge of ingratitude, and hisself from that of evil counsel and injustice. These foul calumnies were willingly entertained, by a people remarkably credulous in the article of scandal, and prone to despise and hate other nations, especially those subject to their dominion, and became a settled public opinion, connecting with the idea of Irishman, every thing wild, barbarous, uncivilized and cruel; insomuch, that posterior writers found it their interest to flatter the prevailing prejudices, by continuing and improving the received calumnies, rather than shock them by the encounter of historical truth. Thus it was, that David Hume, on the receiving documents from Charles O'Connor, to rectify his mistatements of Irish affairs, observed, that their insertion into his work would injure; a sacrifice the Scotch historian would not make to truth.

We have proofs enough remaining of the very contrary principles and conduct of the puritan and popish parties. The first, vowed the extermination of popery and prelacy, and gave orders and authority for murders and massacres,

which were executed to a horrible extent. The second, discountenanced and publicly prohibited murder and robbery.

"But how shall we account for the accumulated charges laid on the Irish, for murders and massacres in the war of 1641, and in this war only? The truth is, without descending to particular and disagreeable proofs, that the æra in question was an age of fanaticism, of hypocrisy, and of dark and bloody doings, and those men who, after bringing their prince to the block, offered to restore Sir Phelim O'Neal* to his honours and estate, as well as to save a life justly forfeited by his cruelty, provided he would accuse the late king as been the source of all the disturbances in Ireland, would stick at nothing to promote their interest, or palliate their own unequalled barbarities." That they were deeply concerned, to misrepresent this kingdom, needs no proof; but we may reasonably believe, that were the Irish capable of even imagining half the barbarities then laid to their charge, they would be at this day as free a nation as any in Europe. Throw dirt, and some of it will stick,' is a political maxim, which even the upper ranks in society have sometimes adopted: and surely there is nothing in the origin, the education, or the principles of the anti-royalists of the last century, that should lead us to believe them incapable of employing it on a useful occasion.

"It is far from my intention or inclination to

* Dean Kerr's affidavit in Nalson's Collections.

justify any kind of outrage against a lawful authority; but surely those gentlemen who, from principle, defend the measures taken by the English and Scotch, in taking up arms against their lawful sovereign, should not censure the Irish for endeavouring to preserve their liberties from the invasions of the English parliament. No one looks on oppression for religious principles in a more detestable light than I; and, upon reflection it must appear astonishing, that the professors of a doctrine which inculcates the most humiliating and passive principles, should be the foremost to maintain it by means the least justifiable. But surely the clergy and laity of England and Scotland, who solemnly swore "to the extirpation of popery and prelacy in the three kingdoms, without respect of persons, lest they might partake in their sins, and thereby be in danger to partake of their plagues,"* should be the last to condemn the people of Ireland for rising in defence of their religion. These last were certainly more justifiable in defending their old opinions, than the reformers in forcing new tenets on them.

"That the Irish coalition was not intended for the base and abominable purposes of extermination in cold blood, as their enemies have affirmed, is demonstrable. After all the measures for the intended insurrection were settled, a general meeting of the Irish chiefs was held at the abbey of Multifarnan in the county of Westmeath, in

* Solemn League and Covenant.