ly goaded into insurrection: every spark of discord between rival chieftains was fanned into a flame, to afford the government a pretext for interfering between them,-crushing both, sacrificing their lives, and enriching the governors with their lordly possessions; and when, thus goaded, they recurred to arms, in defence of themselves, their wives, their children, and their estates, they were pursued with the most ruthless and remorseless cruelty ; and, to palliate the tyranny, the rapine, and the barbarities of their oppressors, they were overwhelmed with the foulest abuse, and portraits drawn of them, which would have better suited incarnate demons than human beings."

I have already hinted, that one of the principal objects of this work is to investigate the insurrection of 1641, strip it of the fraudulent misrepresentations by which it has been disfigured, and lay it before the world in the garb of truth.

In order, therefore, to induce the reader to bring to the subject a large portion of candour,to evince on how "sandy a foundation" this story rests, to expose the blind credulity, or the sinister policy, of the great body of historians, who have given full faith and confidence to the narrative of Sir John Temple, I shall submit a fair specimen of the documents on which his history depends for support. Fortunately for the holy cause of truth, but unfortunately for his character and his history, he has quoted his authorities at

8

full length. They are taken from the " thirty-two thick folio volumes of depositions" mentioned by Warner, which exhibit such a mass of fraud, falsehood, absurdity, and let me add impossibility, as I may venture to assert never was exhibited before,—and, for the honour of human nature, it is to be hoped, never will be again. These depositions demand a much more detailed exposition than I can give them in the present chapter. It is a melancholy truth, that they form the basis of all the horrible narratives on this subject, of all the authors who have treated on it, from Temple to Clarendon, from Clarendon to Borlase, from Borlase to Hume, and from Hume down to Russell's Modern Europe. Temple embellished them with all the hideous colouring that could excite terror and abhorrence: and, I repeat, nearly all the succeeding historians have laid Temple under heavy contributions, and, without adverting to the fabulous evidence on which he relies, and which carries its own condemnation with it, have borrowed not merely his facts, but his very phraseology. The overwhelming decision of Dr. Warner, which I have quoted in page 20, ought to have set the question at rest, above fifty years ago.

I shall therefore devote several chapters to this particular subject, and give such copious extracts from the depositions, as will convince any

8 Warner, 146.

man whose heart is not steeled, and whose conscience is not seared, against doing justice to the Irish, of the superlative wickedness of the tribunals which received such depositions, the equally superlative folly of the writer who filled his book with them, and the never-to-be-forgiven carelessness (to use the most favourable terms) of those writers who relied on such a deceptious, fraudulent guide.

To relieve the sombre hue of this long chapter, I shall give anticipatory extracts from a few of those wonderful tales, from which, as I have said, Temple and his copyists have drawn their highly-coloured pictures of the massacre.

"Arthur Culm, of Cloughwater, in the county of Cavan, esquire, deposeth, That he was credibly informed, by some that were present there, that there were thirty women and young children, and seven men, flung into the river of Belturbert; and when some of them offered to swim for their lives, they were, by the rebels, followed in boats, and knocked on the head with poles; the same day they hanged two women at Turbert; and this deponent doth verily believe, that Mulmore O'Rely, the then sheriff, had a hand in the commanding the murder of those said persons, for that he saw him write two notes, which he sent to Turbert, by Brien O'Rely, upon whose coming these murders were committed: and those persons who were present, also affirmed, that the bodies of those thirty persons drowned did not appear upon the water till about six weeks after, past; as the said O'Rely came to the town, all the bodies came floating up to the very bridge; those persons were all formerly stayed in the town by his protection, when the rest of their neighbours in the town went away."9

66

It may not be time misemployed to examine this deposition, which, I beg leave to say, is less exceptionable than many others of this precious collection. The deponent was, in the first place, credibly informed," that these persons "were flung into the river," and this information he had from "some who were present there." He "verily believed that Mulmore O'Rely had a hand in commanding the murder:" and his "belief" rested on the very cogent and convincing reason, that he "saw him write two notes, which he sent to Turbert by Brien O'Rely, on whose coming these murders were committed." On this strong evidence, Mulmore O'Rely, in all likelihood, lost his life and estate, which estate was probably guilty of the murder. In Ireland, in former times, under the mild government of England, large estates were frequently guilty of enormous crimes, particularly high treason, and deservedly punished: and the larger they were, the more prone to guilt, and the more certain of punish

ment.

But on casting my eye once more over the deposition, I find I overlooked the chief part of the evidence against Mulmore. The " "thirty bodies" (seven remained behind) rose up by common consent, when this murderer made his appearance, and "came floating up to the very bridge," probably as public prosecutors of this horrid culprit. It is not said, unfortunately, whether they took their oaths to the murder: this is,

however, presumable; and it is to be supposed that it was owing to an oversight, that Temple was silent on the subject. A doubt has been started by a learned barrister, whether the appearance of these bodies, "floating up to the very bridge," at the critical minute, when the said O'Rely "came to town," is to be considered as positive or circumstantial evidence. Much of this would depend on the property of Mulmore. If he were a very rich man, the appearance of "thirty bodies floating to the very bridge” ought to be regarded as positive evidence; but if a poor man, not worth hanging, it ought to be set down as eircumstantial.

But to be serious:

Lives there a man who can peruse this deposition, find it introduced into a grave history, know it to have been a part of the evidence on which rests the credit of the tales of what Borlase's title-page states as "the execrable Irish Rebellion," and to have been, with other evidence, equally absurd, instrumental in confiscating the property and immolating the lives of the Irish Catholics; without a strong sentiment of mingled astonishment and indignation, without a thorough conviction, that all the histories, grounded on such documents, however supported by the imposing names of Clarendon, Hume, or Russell, must be radically false and corrupt, and worthy to be altogether rejected?

!