lutionary movement as an event in Irish history, and to connect it with the larger whole of which it is only a part, viz. the European movement of the time, in which one force is headed by Louis, while another is represented by William. From this point of view the Irish Revolution no longer appears as a constitutional change taking place in a corner of Europe, caused by a petty quarrel between a Stuart and his Parliament, but as an important episode in a great drama, of which the chief actors are the greatest sovereign, and the greatest politician and patriot of his time. By this explanation, in which Dr. J. B. Bury in his generous letter (p. xxiii) concurs, I trust our knowledge is not only made coherent; perhaps it has also been made fuller. The facts reflect more of the history of the world and have, I hope, thus been expanded and deepened. Every new fact we discover about a thing is a step in the direction of its explanation, for this fact, on closer inspection, is seen to contain a relation to other things, and thus to force us beyond the limits of the part to the whole to which it belongs, and which alone can make it more completely intelligible to us. Besides consulting modern writers, I have had constant recourse to original authorities, both published and unpublished. In Dublin I used the seven folio volumes relating to the siege of Derry and the immense collection of Haliday pamphlets preserved in the Royal Irish Academy; the correspondence of George Clarke, Secretary of War (1690-1694), in thirteen volumes, and the correspondence of Archbishop King (1696-1727) in seventeen volumes preserved in Trinity College, Dublin. The Haliday collection did not repay me for the time I spent in the perusal of the pamphlets, though doubtless I gained a clearer perception of the feelings of the time. Clarke preserved all the letters sent to him during the course of the war, and these I consulted throughout. The letters of b Douglas and Ginkell are particularly difficult to read, and at times I have been uncertain of the meaning of these writers, especially of Ginkell. For the latter part of the period the King correspondence is invaluable. Here and there occur breaks in the archbishop's letters, notably in the years 1699, 1700, 1703, 1709, and 1710. The volumes containing the letters of these years are dampstained, and it is practically impossible to read them. The important Southwell correspondence is divided between Trinity College, Dublin, the Record Office, Dublin, and the British Museum. These papers I read five times, and with each reading derived new information. The State Papers in the Record Office, London, are of the highest importance. In the Bodleian Library I consulted the Nairne Papers (1689-1701), and in Paris used material preserved in the Archives des Affaires Étrangères. Further details are given in the bibliography, but I have not hesitated to quote freely from contemporary documents-especially if generally inaccessible-when it appeared that the impress of reality might thus be more effectively stamped on my analysis of the motives of the men of that day. This Another matter, perhaps, calls for comment. volume deals with a time when Ireland was divided into hostile camps, following generally the lines of ecclesiastical cleavage. Time has happily softened some of the animosities of bygone days, without diminishing the sincere attachment of individuals to their faith. With religious creeds as such I have not had to deal, and, when it has been necessary to touch upon the purely political aspects of the religious strife, have endeavoured to do so as dispassionately as possible. Impartiality, which accepts its proper burden of responsibility, can only be maintained by unremitting vigilance. I can only say that I have aimed at an ideal which is admittedly difficult of attain ment. That form of impartiality, however, which is content to register facts, but declines under any circumstances to interpret them, may avoid certain pitfalls, but deprives history of any serious claim to value. I trust that my attempts to hold the balance true, even if they fail to command the assent of the reader, will not be regarded as showing a lack either of candour or of generous feeling. My debt to workers in the field of history is heavy. Dr. Mahaffy, who wrote the accompanying introduction, has done me the very great service of reading all my proof-sheets, and making many valuable criticisms and suggestions. The military chapters owe much to Colonel Gough, V.C., Colonel Wynyard, R.A., Colonel Buckland, R.E., and Major B. Smyth. Doctors Moritz J. Bonn and W. R. Scott gave me much valuable counsel in my account of the Mercantile System. To one who stood in the foremost rank of Irish historians, the late Mr. C. Litton Falkiner, I owe much, for in the preliminary work done for this volume he gave me help and information most lavishly. It has been a sad thought to me in writing the following pages that they will not be read by a friend. who took such a deep interest in the preparation for them. I am also indebted to Mr. R. Dunlop of Vienna : at all times he has been willing to aid me in my many difficulties. My sister assisted me with important advice and criticism, and my manuscript derived no little benefit from her wide outlook and her accurate knowledge. Lastly, my wife has rendered me invaluable assistance by her judgment and sympathy in arranging the material and revising it for the press. ROBERT H. MURRAY. 11 HARCOURT TERRACE, DUBLIN. |