the world, in any other history than that of Ireland, to reject the whole of the evidence, even if it extended to one hundred folio volumes, instead of thirty-two, which are swelled to this immoderate extent, by silly tales of what "this body heard another body say."103 But the history of Ireland is an exception to all the general rules on the subject of history. The allegations against the Irish have been so often reiterated, so deeprooted has been the hatred excited against the nation, and so deplorable has been the credulity of the world on this topic, that a fabulous tale, resting wholly on such incongruities and absurdities as we have seen, has been adopted, without investigation, by nine-tenths of those who have written on English or Irish affairs: and there are in this country, as well as in England, many, even among those who pride themselves on the extent of their reading, who are so far duped as to give as implicit credit to the story of the hundred and fifty-four thousand murdered in Ulster alone in

markable memorandum made by the marquis of Ormond, in his own writing, of a passage in the Council, on April 23, 1643. There was then a letter read at the Board, from a person who claimed a great merit to himself, in getting some hundreds of gentlemen indicted, and the rather for that he had laid out sums of money to procure witnesses to give evidence to a jury, for the finding those indictments. This was an intimate friend of Sir William Parsons, and might very well know that such methods would be approved by him."104

103 Warner, 146.

104 Carte, I. 423.

three months, as to the account of the revolution of 1688, or the accession of the Hanoverian family to the throne of England.

I trust the reader will well weigh, and ponder on, the naked detail contained in the preceding note, which exhibits a scene of atrocity unparalleled in the history of fraud, forgery, and perjury. What a stupendous, what a sickening fact is the finding of one thousand bills of indictment in two days! And, be it observed, these bills were principally against the wealthy classes, the "noblemen, gentlemen, and freeholders."105 These were the men whom it was worth while to indict, men whose estates would recompense the trouble, pay for the subornation of hired witnesses, and sate the avarice of the prime movers of the business.

Above one thousand bills of indictment in two days! Suppose the jury sat twelve hours in each day, from six in the morning till six in the evening, without obeying any of the calls of hunger, it was at the rate of forty-two bills in an hour, or two every three minutes. Well may Carte observe, that they did not "allow time for the examination of each particular case." This is a most feeble mode of stating the affair, which he ought to have stigmatized in terms of the strongest reprobation. He might have said, and with perfect truth, that they did not "allow time to

105 Carte, I. 454.

read the bills, and little more than was necessary to sign them." They must have been huddled over en masse, barely reading the titles, marking them true bills, (how true, heaven knows) and annexing the names of the jurors.

And these bills of indictment-(who can read the fact without shuddering?)-decided on the lives and fortunes of the principal of the "nobility, gentry, and freeholders" of Ireland, of whom, on these, and indictments equally just and honourable, two thousand were prosecuted to outlawry by Sir Philip Percival, clerk of the crown,' and their estates confiscated.

99106

Will it be deemed extravagant, to assert that the annals of the world can produce no similar circumstance, and that never was rampant and profligate injustice so completely triumphant ? This was the time, when, in those halls nicknamed courts of justice, "the benches," (to use the strong and energetic language of the duke of Ormond, in his speech to the Irish Parliament) "were crowded or oppressed with the throng and wicked weight of those who ought rather to have stood manacled at the bar."107 How deplorable the case of a noble nation, exposed to the "tender mercies" of such juries and such judges!

I intended to have closed this chapter with the above paragraph; but it appears that some further reflections are demanded on the subject. It 107 Borlase, App. 84.

106 Carte, I. 454.

may not be improper, indeed it appears indispensable, to consider what is the nature of a bill of indictment, what are the duties of a grand jury who are to decide on it, and what are its consequences? Answers to these inquiries will bring the subject so fully before the reader, as to awaken him to the true character of the procedure which has occupied the chief place in this chapter.

According to Jacob's Law Dictionary, "An indictment is an inquisition taken and made by twelve men at the least, who are thereunto sworn, whereby they find and present that such a person, of such a place, in such a county, and of such a degree, hath committed such a treason, felony, trespass, or other offence, against the peace of the king, his crown, and dignity."108

The accusation is delivered to the grand jury, who are sworn to determine on the probable guilt or innocence of the party accused, according to the evidence brought by the proper officer to support the charge.

Could the jury, who thus found two thousand bills of indictment in two days, have heard the evidence? Certainly not. Did they not therefore violate their oaths? Yes. What were they then? Perjurers. Was not the blood of every man, whom their perjury led to the scaffold, on their heads? Indubitably.

Were not the judges under oath to administer justice correctly? When they received such bills, were they not likewise perjured? Was not the blood of the victims equally to be laid to their charge? Most assuredly.

In ordinary cases, the perjuries of grand juries, however flagitious, are of no great importance, but as respects their own guilt, provided the traverse juries be upright and independent. Not so in that horrible age of perjury. There was hardly any traverse jury used: for the dread of the rack, and the exercise of martial law,* had so terrified the Roman Catholics, that they did not dare to venture into Dublin,† which was a complete den of murder.

* "The prisons of that city [Dublin] were now filled with prisoners: and, as the government increased in strength, were likely to be more crowded every day. It was troublesome, chargeable, and inconvenient to keep them, because of the consumption which it occasioned of victuals; which were already grown very scarce, and their numbers might prove dangerous, for which reason the lords justices resolved to thin them. It was difficult, or rather impossible, for want of freeholders, to find juries in the proper counties where the crimes were acted; so that there was no bringing these persons to a legal trial. In this necessity, it was determined to cause a considerable number of them to be executed by martial law."109

"It was certainly a miserable spectacle, to see every day numbers of people executed by martial law, at the discretion, or rather caprice, of Sir Charles Coote, a hot-headed and bloody man, and as such accounted even by the English and Protestants. Yet this was the man whom the lords justices picked

109 Carte, I. 278.