CHAP. II. The same subject continued in general. SUCH is Lesley's uncontroverted account* of Dr. King, as a subject and a man. His judgment of him, as author of the book in question, is partly as follows. "I can't say," proceeds he, "that I have examined into every single matter of fact, which this author relates; I could not have the opportunity; but I am sure I have looked into the most material, and by these you will easily judge of his sincerity in the rest. But this I can say, that there is not one I have enquired into, but I have found it false in the whole, or in part; aggravated or misrepresented, so as to alter the whole face of the story, and give it perfectly another air and turn; insomuch, that, though many things he says are true, yet he has hardly spoken a true word, that is, told it truly and nakedly, without a warp."+ Mr. Lesley adds this particular caution, for those who peruse that book," that where Dr. King seems most exact, and sets his quotations in the mar gin, that the reader might suspect nothing, there he is to suspect most, and stand upon his guard.” These are heavy accusations, of which, and several others, Mr. Lesley has exhibited many convincing proofs; and more shall be added in the sequel, from undeniable authority. His grace's continued silence under them for more than thirty years, that he survived the publication of this answer, is the more wonderful, on account of his solemn attestation of the sacred name of God, in the conclusion of his book, "that he had not misrepresented or aggravated any thing therein, in prejudice to any body, or out of favor or affection to a party; or insisted on such particulars as might seem to serve no other purpose, but to make his adversaries odious." * Wrote and published his Answer in England in 1692. It was, probably, from a conviction that this charge against himself was just, that his grace in the year 1708, wrote to Dr. Swift on a similar occasion, with respect to a pamphlet he had then published against the dis senters, in the following words: "I wish some facts had been well considered, before vouched; if any one matter in it prove false, what do you think will come of the paper? In short, it will not be in the power of man to hinder it from a warm entertainment.”—Swift's Let. CHAP. III. Particular facts, related in archbishop King's book proved false, concerning popish judges and juries, BUT to come now to the test of this solemn attestation ; I mean his relation of particular facts. Dr. King tells us, that no sooner had the papists of Ireland got judges and juries, that would believe them, but they began a trade of swearing and ripping up, what they pretended their protestant neighbors had said of king James, whilst duke of York, in the time of the popish plot; and that of these protestants, many were found guilty, and excessively fined; and some of them imprisoned for their fines, not being able to satisfy the king, who seized both their body and estates." The doctor likewise informs us, "that these popish judges and juries connived at a wicked contrivance, which was disco, vered to the very bottom, in the county of Meath, to carry on this trade of swearing against all the protestant gentlemen in the country.” But unfortunately for Dr. King's credit, as an historian, that eminent and zealous protestant nobleman, Henry, earl of Clarendon, lord lieutenant of Ireland in 1685, has left us a very different account of the behavior of these popish judges "All the Irish protestants," says Mr. Lesley, "speak exceeding good things of lord Clarendon. They never parted with any chief governor with so much regret; and, as I have been told, none courted him more than Dr. King, who was admitted one of his chaplains.”—Answ. p. 132. His lordship himself suspected that he was recalled from the govern ment of Ireland, on account of his religion. "If," says he, “my being a protestant be the cause of my ill usage, I am so far from being troubled, that I look upon it as a great honor to be found worthy to suffer for my re, ligion."-State Let. vol. ii. p. 158. Harris informs us, "that he was so much depended upon by the protes tants of Ireland, that after the prince of Orange's arrival in England, they made all their applications to him, through his lordship."-Life of king William, f. 187. That the Roman catholics of Ireland did not think him partial in their favor, appears from one of his excellency's letters from Waterford, September 12th, 1686, wherein he says, "lord Tyrone came to see him there, and had continued with him all the time of his being there; but that not one of the other Roman catholic gentlemen had been with him. And that and juries, on that occasion. He tells us, "that when these popish judges went to the assizes in the county of Down and Londonderry, where many considerable persons were to be tried for words formerly spoken against king James,3 they took as much pains as it was possible, to quiet the minds of the people, wherever they went; and that they took care to have all the juries mingled half English half Irish.” And particular. ly with respect to the county of Meath, where Dr. King tells us they principally connived at this wicked trade of swearing, his lordship adds, " that judge Daly* (one of these popish judges) did, at the assizes of that county, enlarge much on the unconscionableness of indicting men upon words spoken so many years before; that he told the jury, that most of those then charged before him in court, could give a good account of themselves, and were well known in the countries were they had lived, and that thereupon the juries, the major part of whom were Irish, acquitted them; that Mr. justice Nugent (another popish judge)" made the same declaration at Drogheda, where several persons were tried for words, upon bills found at the former assizes; and that they were all acquitted, except one man, who was found guilty and fined five pounds." But who would suspect this impartial writer to have known, while he was committing these falsehoods to the press, that lord Clarendon had, by king James's express command, published a proclamation, so early as July 1686, (the popish judges were made only in April preceding,) "forbidding all prosecution of that kind; and ordering, that no person should • Lord Clarendon, in a letter to lord Sunderland, has the following passage: "It is thought fit I should recommend men to some towns (where it is doubted the election may not be good) for mayors, and sheriffs, and common-council-men: in such cases I advise with those who are best acquainted in these towns; particularly with justice Daly, and others of the king's council of that persuasion; and the lists of names those men give me, are always equal, half English half Irish; which, they say, is the best way to unite, and make them live friendly together.”—State_Lett, vol. ii, p. 319. though (if we believe Dr. King) "there was not one of these corporations found to have forfeited, by a legal trial; so that all the corporations in the kingdom were dissolved without any reason, or pretence of abuse of privilege." "Butz will any man believe, that lawyers (and some of them),* this author acknowledges, understood their profession} would bring a quo-warranto against a charter,† and not so much as pretend any abuse, or forfeiture? Of Mr. Nangle, 1 State of the Protest.p. 68. Lesley's Answ. « Nangle, (attorney-general) arrived to a good perfection in the study of the law, and was employed by many protestants." King's State of thé Protestants, &c. p. 55. Mr. Stephen Rice was (to give him his dae) a man of the best sense among them (the popish lawyers), and well enough versed in the law." Ib. p. 54.-" It was before him (when chief baron of the exchequer) all the charters in the kingdom were damned." Id. ib.-Mr. Daly (afterwards judge) though a Roman catholic, yet understood the commor law well, and behaved himself impartially.—76. p. 55. "The several corporations in Ireland having forfeited their charters by miscarriages, misdemeanors, and other offences during the rebellion in 1641, and since, Charles II. had empowered his chief governor of that kingdom to grant new charters to such of these corporations as he should think fit; and for such of them as should not make application for renewing their charter, to issue quo-warrantos against them for avoiding the same. And king James being informed that very few had made such application, directed his deputy Tyrconnel to cause these quo-warantos to be issued, by which their former charters were made void, and new ones given them with additional franchises. See Harris's Life of king William.—It appears from lord Clarendon, "that king James's intention in all this was nothing more than that religion should be no hindrance to the natives from enjoy. ing the benefit of being freemen, and holding offices, as the rest of his subjects did."-State Lett. vol. ii. p. 8. But Dr. King was of a different opinion, and would have that benefit monopolized in the hands of protestants alone, excluding the papists from freedom, and votes in the corporations."—State of the Protest. p.66. "Upon much less provocation, Capel, earl of Essex, lord lieutenant of Ireland, that celebrated champion for liberty, and who was said to have fallen a martyr to it) thought the bringing of quo warrantos against the char ter of Dublin necessary. That chief-governor, in a letter to secretary Coventry, in 1674-5, on occasion of a trifling dispute between the aldermen and commons of that city, says, in my own thoughts, I am of opinion, and have been long so, that nothing will reduce this city to a due composure, unless it be the avoiding their charter by quo warranto, and granting them a new one; for the body of the commons are so numerous, and most of them being extreme poor men, are continually mutinous and factious; whereas, if they had a new charter, and the number reduced to fewer, and those named out of the most substantial chief trading men of the city, the then attorney-general, who was chiefly employed in that business, lord Clarendon makes very honorable mention in scveral of his letters, and in one of them mentions him,3 "as a man of great knowledge, very able in his profession, and of the best reputation for learning, as well as honesty, among that people."* But Dr. King's precipitate passion, or rather prejudice, against these popish judges and lawyers, seems to have so far transported him, that he has entirely mistaken, or misrepresented, this transaction. "Lord Tyrconnel," he tells us, "knowing that the protestants would not give up their charters, did endeavor to prevail with them, to admit papists to freedom and offices in their corporations, that, by their means, he might have their charters surrendered;t but," adds he, "the resolution of the lord mayor of Dublin spoiled that design, and forced the king to bring quo-warrantos against them." Harris, in his life of king William, has retailed this story from King, and dates it in the year 1686, in the mayoralty of sir John Knox. But it is manifest, from lord Clarendon's authentic account of these matters, that the lord mayor and aldermen of Dublin, and many other corporations, had been prevailed upon before Tyrconnel's time, to admit papists to freedom and offices among themselves; «for his lordship had himself dispensed with no less than fifteen Roman catholic merchants of Limerick, according to the king's order, from taking the oath of supremacy, when admitted to the common-council of that sity and, in a letter to lord Sunderland, July 6th, in this very year, his excellency says, "that he had sent letters to all the corporations for giving their freedoms to all the Roman 3 Vol. i. p. 72. vol.ii. p. 373. 4 State of the Protest. p. 67, whose interest it is to be quiet, I am confident, it would be the only way to bring them into order and peace.”—Essex's Letters, p. 114, And in another letter of May 30th, 1686, he says, " in the list of the persons added to the privy council, I find Mr. Richard Nangle; he is a very learned and an honest man."-State Lett, p. 226. Dr. King, was so ridiculously prejudiced against such natives of IrcHand, as were afterwards appointed to city offices under Tyrconnel's government, that not content to represent them as poor and unworthy, (the contrary of which can be proved) he tells us, "their very names spoke barbarities." State of the Protestants, p. 69.-So much it seems were the doctor's delicate ears offended with the harsh sound of Irish surnames, |