the most crouching sycophants to that very king whose designs he prayed God to blast. But Mr Leslie continues to describe this gospel authority of Mr Leland. "In a letter to a person of undoubted credit, in the year 1686, Archbishop King thus wrote:" (and the reader is requested to attend to the slippery materials of which some churchmen are composed)" that the principle of non-resistance was a steady principle of loyalty and that it was intolerable for the members of any state to flee to foreign succours, on the pretence that their own governors had made laws against reason, conscience, and justice; yet this is one of the principal arguments in the book abovementioned, for justifying the revolution. What I have now written," says Mr Leslie," I have from the person who wrote it; and if he desires it, his letter shall be produced." Archbishop King did not court an investigation of his old principles, and was silent; he trusted entirely to the fury of his hostility against the Irish, for the quantity of credit which he might possibly enjoy with his English reader. Such is the foundation or authority on which Mr Leland builds his charges against the Irish, during the reign of James II. With respect to Archbishop King's book, called "The State of the Protestants in Ireland, during the Reign of James II.," Mr Leslie gave it the following character in 1692. "I cannot say 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 may easily judge of his sincerity in the rest: but this I can say, that there is not one I have inquired into, but I have found 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." And Mr Leslie 'further adds, that "when Dr King seems most exact, and sets his quotations in the margin, that his reader may suspect nothing, then he is to suspect most, and stand upon his guard." The archbishop survived the publication of Mr Leslie's re'ply for thirty years, and continued during that long period unmoved by the triumphant refutation of his slanders against the Irish.

The Earl of Clarendon has, in his letters, refuted most of the calumnies of Archbishop King. As lord lieutenant, he had the best opportunity of seeing the conduct and ascertaining the disposition of the catholics during this period of their history. Were we to credit King, we should conclude that the moment the catholics got into power they commenced an atrocious legal persecution against the unfortunate protestant. That there were bitter resentments rankling in the bosom of the Irish catholics; that many of them would have seized this opportunity of wreaking their vengeance on their old oppressors; that they would have sought the restoration of those properties of which they thought themselves most unjustly deprived; that many of

them considered the protestants their most inveterate enemies are facts which require no evidence to demonstrate the truth of. He who has gone through the pages which precede this reign, will not wonder that human nature should have so felt or so acted. It is the miserable, but necessary consequence of the cruelties and persecutions they experienced; and one which should have taught all future governments, that sooner or later the despot meets his punishment in the unpitying vengeance of the persecuted. Yet we have the best authority for stating, that the catholics of 1685 did not turn upon their old pursuers, as Archbishop King describes; and that the most enlightened and distinguished among them were disposed to demean themselves by their protestant countrymen with the mildest spirit of toleration. The Earl of Clarendon has vindicated the Irish catholics against the calumnies of their enemies; and his authority will not be denied, who was considered by the protestants of Ireland their most anxious patron. Archbishop King states, that "when the papists," as he is pleased to call the Irish catholics, "got judges and juries that would believe them, they began a trade of swearing and ripping up what they pretended their protestant neighbours had said of King James, when Duke of York, on the time of the popish plot ;" and that of those 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:" so writes the archbishop;

66

but what says the Earl of Clarendon? He tells us, that "when catholic judges went to the assizes in the counties of Down and Londonderry, where many considerable persons were to be tried for words formerly spoken against James, they took as much pains as 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 and half Irish." Is it thus justice is administered to the catholics, even at the present day? Are protestant judges found recommending the equitable principle that the catholic should be tried by a jury, half English and half Irish, or in other words, half protestant and half catholic? But Archbishop King particularises the county Meath as the principal theatre on which the catholics displayed their persecuting spirit. Lord Clarendon's account is somewhat different; and his lordship too, with respect to the county Meath, is not less particular than the archbishop. He says, " that Judge Daly, one of the catholic 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 counties where they lived; and that thereupon the jurors, the major part of whom were Irish, acquitted them. Mr Justice Nugent, another catholic judge, made the same declaration at Drogheda, where several persons were tried for words upon bills found at the former assizes, and they were all acquitted,

except one man, who was found guilty and fined in five pounds.".

But the Earl Clarendon gives a stronger instance of the spirit of equity and moderation, which influenced the conduct of the principal Irish catholics, of the men who had the power to injure and oppress, if they were inclined. This single instance is a sufficient reply to the archbishop's entire book. Lord Clarendon, in a letter to Lord Sunderland, -the confidential minister of James, writes as follows: "It is thought fit I should recommend men to some towns for mayors, sheriffs, and common council men. In such cases, I advise with those (who are best acquainted with those towns, particularly with Mr Justice Daly* (a catholic judge) and others of the king's council of that persuasion, and the lists of the names those men give me, are always equal, half English and half Irish, which they say is the best way to unite and make them live friendly together."

Mr Leland has artfully set down the intemperance of the Earl of Tyrconnel for the settled principles of the enlightened catholics, who occupied the highest situations of honour and profit under the crown. He speaks in terms of contempt of those distinguished lawyers and judges, of whom the Earl of Clarendon, who daily experienced the greatness of their talents and the purity of their principles, constantly speaks with respect and vene

It is hoped that the protestant Justice, Daly, of 1813, will take a note of this passage; he will not be the worse for it.