The field of history

the individual for every word of it and meanly
will be be considered, who affects to evade personal
accountability for what the exigency of the public
cause calls upon him to disclose or comment upon.
Not only public scenes affecting the interest of the
nation are to be faithfully represented, but the secret
mechanism, which compleated the scenic exhibition
is to be developed, when the spectators are no longer
to be amused by deception, but to be benefited by
instruction. There are facts and circumstances
deeply affecting the character and welfare of a nation,
which not only may, but which ought to be fully
and distinctly set forth, so as to be thoroughly un-
derstood and efficiently acted upon by the people
interested in or affected by them. In my attempt to
bring under the public eye a portion of Irish history,
I renounced all discretion in selecting events, which
had a tendency to disclose the spirit and means of
carrying on the government of that part of the
United Kingdom. The same duty forbad sup-
pression, disguise and misrepresentation.
does it behove me to say any thing of my fitness to
attempt the Herculean toil. I have (perhaps too
adventurously) applied my shoulders; but have
hitherto felt no disposition to relax my efforts.

Little

Το you Sir I am not accountable for the views and common to motives, which originally induced me to employ my pen upon the subject of Irish History. By law it is common field, which every man has a right to

all.

travel over, provided he convert not his journey to the purposes of favor, malice or wanton trespass on private character. My acrimonious accuser Sir Richard Musgrave charged me with being a volunteer, an eager volunteer and it will appear hereafter, that my volunteering in the cause, of Ireland was also offensive to your Reverence, even before you had seen a page of what I had written. Volunteer as I am, I disclaim not discipline: the first principle of which is obedience to the voice of truth. Historical truth can be no libel: it is an act of indispensible justice to the governors and governed of the people, who are the subject of the history. The individual, who has acted a part on the national theatre, from that moment opens his conduct and character to the observations and critiques of every man, who undertakes the public charge and duty of an historian. That duty is awfully severe in diligence of research, impartiality of judgment and veracity of assertion according to the best evidence to be procured.

an often

without

ugh the evi

which sup

It frequently happens, that a very simple though An historiimportant conclusion is drawn from a long and concludes complicated chain of evidence, which the succinct going throstile of annals or history will not permit the writer dence, to enter into. The historian, who claims credit for veracity, will make no assertion nor draw any conlusion, which he is not enabled to substantiate by evidence, when called upon to refute a malicious or groundless charge of falsehood or misrepresentation.

When

conclusion.

When therefore a gentleman, Reverend Sir, of your profession, acquirements, and rank in life comes forward in so austere and authoritative a tone, to charge me with the guilt of abusing one of the greatest and most honorable men our country has produced, with a malignity and a coarseness of language, which no transaction of his whole life can possibly justify, &c. no man of honor and honesty will censure me for supporting my credit for historical veracity, for vindicating the honor and rendering justice to the people of Ireland, for repelling the foul charge of the flagitious crime of wilful misrepresentation, of which you say in one paragraph I do not mean, that Mr. Plow. den is guilty, though in the next you bluntly charge him with doing it with malignity and coarseness of language. Now nothing but wilfulness can affix malignity to any misrepresentation. My readers will judge of the coarseness of my language. From deference to them, I endeavoured to render it clear, simple and strong. If I have failed, I reget the inability to effectuate my wish. Your assumption of a right to complain of my being misguided by the foreign influence men, because you had warned and cautioned me against trusting to any of them, not only superadds to my obligation and duty of placing the whole transaction before the public, but would render criminal any suppression of the evidence, upon which I have written what has already appeared in print, which remotely or proximately affects you.

It

It is necessary to premise, that every publication, whether in newspapers or pamphlets, which tends to question the veracity of what I have found it necessary to assert or refer to in my history concerning you, Reverend and most learned Doctor, your beneficent patron of the present hour, or your bifronted hero of the turbid days of Cromwell and the Stuarts, will be noticed in that manner, which shall most distinctly explain to your countrymen all the causes, or motives, whether of accident wisdom or rashness, that regulate your general conduct, or affect your public character and writings. In the note before referred to, I said, what gave rise to my correspondence with you, was my wish to render as perfect, as possible, the historical review of the State of Ireland, which I then had in hand; to procure certain materials touching Catholic Irish affairs during the last century, which you alone possest amongst your grandfathers papers. Out of this circumstance arose a correspondence, which from its nature was national, and therefore public for every national purpose.

thor by his

correspon

Whoever publishes his thoughts, opens a corres- Every Aupondence with every man, who chuses openly to publication notice or censure the publication. I consequently offer opens a no particular reason, much less an apology, for the dence with remarks and observations, which I shall take the who chuses liberty of making upon what you have said in print. him. As therefore you have in a printed letter to your

every man

to address

countrymen publickly claimed a right to complain of my not having followed or heeded your cautions and warnings, but permitted myself to be led on blindly by the blind, and having been guilty of abusing one of the greatest and most honorable men of your country with malignity and coarseness of language &c, I claim equal right to apprize your countrymen what those cautions and warnings were, how they came to be given, and why I so far rejec ted and despised them, as to have excited your displeasure and offence. Though a simple Laic I cannot allow you, Reverend and most learned Doctor, the exclusive advantage of one of your mottos from the learned Fleury*

Flattery and servile com

plaisance

The four different letters of Columbanus are not reprehen ded, because they contain no truth; but, because the most learned Doctor has endeavoured to seduce his countrymen under the most splendid and glittering banners of truth, historical and theological, into vital errors of policy and religion. He stands forth, as the exclusive champion of veracity, having forced into requisition every general axiom or adage upon truth, (that inflexible emanation of the Divinity) from the councils, fathers, and writers of the Church down to the modern philosophers of France. "Let us look up, says he, to that being, whose judg"ments hang suspended over our heads. Sursum Corda! Let 66 us remember, that truth requires no quibbles of Casuistry to be urged in her defence: that we can never impose upon "hearers or readers by partial representations; that honesty "is the best policy &c." (Col. ad Hib. p. 118) Here I join issue: and am free to avow, that I cordially admit with Jno. Bayle, that truth ought to be promoted in all things, against Varro, Origen,

ἐσ