papistical malignity. Thus they refer the Proclamation of 1629, to 1626,* and they omit the provocations which caused it! In order to come at the truth, we must recur to originals, confront the Protestant with the Catholic, and mistrust both. Hammond l'Estrange is the first who mentions the story of two Friars hanging themselves in their own defence;† and this story, which he gives with a sneer, and Borlace from him, is gravely copied from the latter by Curry, as an Historical Fact! -Curry refers this pretended fact to 1633, l'Estrange to 1630, and the author of "Fores and Firebrands," from Ware's papers, to 1629, which is the genuine date.-L'Estrange wrote

* Curry's Dialogue, p. 12-13.

+ L'Estrange's Annals, p. 116, year 1630. Robert Ware's "Foxes and Firebands," part 2, from p. 72, to p. 77, and the Council books of England and Ireland, which he quotes say, that in 1629, in consequence of seditious Sermons preached by the Carmelites of Cook-street, the mob rose, on S. Stephen's day, to resist a warrant issued for the suppression of that Chapel, that they pelted the Archbishop, the Magistrates; and the Guards, and that this was the cause of the Proclamation which ensued. Dromore's Sermon, October 23, 1629, p. 17. Usher's Letters, p. 423. Hunt of the Fox, p. 196.

in England, far from the scene of action; but the last mentioned author wrote on the spot; and it appears from Strafford's Letters, that some of the foreign-influenced Clergy went so far as to threaten with excommunication any Catholic who voted for a Protestant Member of Parliament;* to administer oaths extrajudically upon the Altar; and to deny Sacraments in Civil Causes; which compelled the Lord Deputy "to restrain them within the bounds of their "own function, from meddling any more in "that kind."+

87. Nothing can injure a good cause more than a disingenuous manner of relating only one part of an historical fact, and suppressing the other. This is the Castabalaism of those scurrilous and calumniating libels, which have

* Let. v. i, p. 267-270. Compare what has been said above, p. 34, 113, of Catholic Members of Parliament, with respect to the discipline of the Council of Trent.

+ Ib. 203 and 248-For this he was threatened, in an Anonymous Libel, with a Felton or a Ravillac-See his Letters to Lord Cottington, ib. 371, and to the Earl of Newcastle, April 9, 1635, ib. 412.

at all times characterized the foreign-influenced Press, and brought such unmerited obloquy on the Religion and the History of our Ancestors.It is notorious that the Oath of Supremacy did not exclude the Catholic members from the Parliaments of 1613, 1614, 1615, 1639, 1640, or 1641. Carte, justly ob serves, that the Catholic Lawyers and Solicitors practised in Courts as freely as Protestants Do we not know that they even took the lead; that they were the most active members in the house; that they were the managers of the Prosecution against unfortunate Strafford; that they were foremost in the affairs of the limitation and Graces, and in all the Political events of those times? So far back as in 1615, when Mr. Crooke, Member for Baltimore, opposed their readmission to practice, saying that they were corrupt in judgment, he was ordered, by a Majority of eighty-three to seventy-four, to retract at the Bar; and not having done this to the Satisfaction of the house, it was voted that he should submit on his Knee; but re

fusing to do that also, he was again brought to the bar, reprimanded by the Speaker, and

2

ر

committed to the Castle.*

Who can attribute the acts of local and temporary violence, which were practised occasionally in those days, to a pretended persecution on the score of Religion, which is utterly disowned by the State, and refuted by repeated acts of liberal condescension on the part of the King? The Nobility were not persecuted; the Gentry were not persecuted. The foreigninfluenced Friars and Bishops, whose principles caused so much obloquy to their Religion, were; but they provoked persecution by their conduct, and they inflamed hatred by their principles.

88. We might as well attribute to Religion, the persecution of the Irish Bards at this time, as that of the foreign-influenced Clergy. But this is not pretended even by the foreign-influenced themselves. One of our most bitter

* Journals of the Irish H. of Com. v. 1. Curry himself acknowledges that this is a fair proof of the weight and consideration of the Popish party at that time. Hist. Mem. Lond. 1765, p. 37.

complaints against the English in the 16th and 17th centuries, is thus expressed in our Annals ad ann. 1546.

Tadhce ua Cobhthaigh Oide Scol Er le Dan, do gabhail le Gallaibh, 7 a beith raithe co leith illaimh hi Ccaislen an Righ tre na comhbaidh le Gaoidhhealaibh, co ro fobraidh a Oidh: ar a aoi terna slan fa deoidh.

Thadeus O'Coffy, the chief professor of Poetry of Ireland,* was taken by the English, (not by the Protestants,) and kept

* The importance which, in those times, as in all former ages, was annexed, not from Religious, but from political motives, to the Bardic Profession, may be inferred from the great care with which our Annalists always record the deaths of Bards, down to the reign of Charles I.-Thus

Under the year 1554 where O'Coffy's death is mentioned, he is styled chief Poet of Ireland and Albany. "Tadhcc mac Aodha ai Chobhthaigh Priomh Oide Eireann 7 Alban le Dan decc.Thadeus O'Coffy, son of Hu; chief teacher of Ireland and Scotland, in Poetry, died.

1508. Corbmac O'Cianain Saoi Senchadha, 7 fhir Dhana decc.-Cormac O'Cianan a learned Historian and Poet, died.

1509. Mac an Filedh Giolla Crist mc Amhlaibh, Saoi fhir Dhana decc.-The son of the Poet Gill-christ, the son of Amlaf, a learned Poet, died.

1510. O'Fialan Fergal oide dersccaighthe le dan 7 Eocchan mc Briain ui Uiccinn, Oide Eir le Dan decc.-O'Filan Fergal, an ingenious teacher of Poetry, and Eogan the son of Brian O'Higgins, Preceptor of Ireland, in Poetry, died.

1511. Dubhthach mac Dubhthaigh ui Duibhgennain Saci k seanchas, feur Sonasa 7 saidhbhreasa moir decc.-Dubtach