audacity of contradiction in the British Critic, so prevalent throughout their two first essays against the Historical Review, throws them directly within the observation of a great man, who also had to combat a class of general deniers of palpable verities-Nec tam pertinaces fore arbitror ut clarissimum solem sanis atque patentibus oculis videre se negent. LACTANT.

The author is charged (p. 476) with having passed over sixteen reigns, viz. from Richard I. to Henry VII. Allowing the charge to be either true or important, it clears him at least of even an attempt to falsify any historical fact during those reigns. He is gratified, however, in the British Critic's bringing before the public the

rical veracity will certainly be questioned by those, who credit this anecdote, which can be still verified by many living acquaintance of the late Mr. A. Millar. But, ex ore tuo, te judico. Mr. Hume has himself confessed, that no man has yet arisen, who has been enabled to pay an entire regard to truth, and has dared to expose her without covering or disguise to the eyes of the prejudiced public. (Hift. of Eng.) With how much more dignity spoke an honest Englishman, ere modern philosophy, deistical scepticism, or political refinement had disguised the British character: Dura est enim conditio historiographorum: quia si vera dicant, homines provocant: si falsa scripturis commendant, Dominus, qui veridicos ab adulatoribus sequestrat, non acceptat. MAT. PAR. 774. For hard is the lot of the historian! if he speak truth, he offends man: if by his writings he countenance falsehood, the Lord, who segregates truth-tellers from flatterers, will not receive him.

transaction of the imposture of Simnel: for admitting that adherence to the claims of the House of York was no act of rebellion, the attachment of the Irish to the supposed Earl of Warwick is an illustrious instance (amongst many) of the grateful affection of that nation to their benefactors, and of their distinguished loyalty to their lawful sovereign; for presuming that impostor to be the Earl of Warwick, they considered him to be the true Plantagenet.

So gross are the deviations of those bilious critics from the knowledge of the scholar, the fairness of the gentleman, and the candor of the reviewer, that, after having illustrated an instance of each, the author will dismiss them from his thoughts for ever; unless some future well-founded or tempered critique should suggest the inaccuracy or falsehood of some historical fact, which he will then correct, and publicly recognise his obligation to the suggester of the mistatement: for truth, from whatever hand it comes, fhall continue to be, as it has hitherto been, the sole object of his attainment.

The British Critic (p. 481) betrays the slender store of legal and constitutional knowledge, with which he so confidently arrogates the function of librorum censor. In his pruriency for invective, he charges the author with not having read,

or

or not understanding the statute against marrying with the Irish. In turgid hebetude, these timeserving commentators upon the statutes confine the prohibition to intermarriages between the King's subjects and Irish rebels, unless they became denizens: ignorant that denization is the cure of alienage, not of high treason. But what will the rural curate, who reluctlantly pays for the impartial elucubrations of the British Critic, as the sine quâ non of his promotion, what will his rector, what his ordinary, what will any man, who has hitherto given them credit for the knowledge of the scholar, or even for common honesty, say, when he is apprized, that the 56th page of the Historical Review, which has drawn forth their Pharifaical rant, contains the solemn opinion, agreeing with the author's (and with every lawyer's) interpretation of that statute, so recently given as on the 10th of February 1800, by the late Earl of Clare, undoubtedly the most able, and by his creatures and followers cried up as the purest supporter of the Protestant ascendancy in "The early policy of the English Go$6 vernment certainly was to discourage all con"nexion of the colony with the native (mark, he

Ireland.

66

says not rebel) Irish it seems difficult, howe"ver, to reconcile it to any principle of sound policy; it was a declaration of a perpetual

66

war against not only the native Irish, but against

every person of English blood, who had settled "beyond the limits of the Pale, or from motives "of personal interest or convenience had formed "connexions with the natives (this was no act

of treason), and adopted their laws or customs; " and it had the full effect, which might have "been expected: it drew closer the confederacy "it was meant to dissolve, and implicated the "colony of the Pale in ceaseless warfare and " contention with each other, and with the in"habitants of the adjacent district." (Speech of the Earl of Clare, in D. P. 9.)

As the author's view was the publication of truth, he once thought, as he continues to think, that it was his duty to send it forth in the form in which it should pass the most current. He was aware that, to that class of his readers, who are really desirous of attaining the truth, it would be immaterial, from whose pen it came: and to that class of them, whose prejudices being once fixed would reluctantly submit to any truth which counteracted them, he presumed the words of one of their favourite writers would receive more ready credit than those of the author. For this reason the author designedly copied from Leland,

where

where Leland spoke the truth: particularly concerning the early scenes of the reformation and its

*The late Dr. Leland is well known to have written his History for a bishopric, which he never attained. It is but a more polished edition of Cox, the falsities of whose work are too rank and numerous for specific refutation. The author never intended to publish a polemical work, to refute other false historians, but to submit to the public a genuine view of the state of Ireland, by tearing away the veil of fictitious story, and exposing facts, such as they were. Dr. Leland was amply furnished with documents for writing a true history of Ireland by several, who were desirous, that historical justice should at length be done to that much-traduced people. He cultivated the acquaintance of, and was in habits of intimacy with the late Mr. Charles O'Connor, of Ballynagare, who was possessed of the best collection of materials for writing Irish history down to the period, to which Dr. Leland carries it, of any individual in Europe, and which is now deposited in the Marquis of Buckingham's library at Stowe. The author has been repeatedly assured by two gentlemen of great respectability now living, that they have heard Dr. Leland assure Mr. O'Connor, that he was fully aware of the false colouring and unfair tendency of his History; but that the persons, for whom he wrote and published it, would not relish or encourage the work, unless it supported those facts and principles, which had received currency with the English ascendancy in Ireland since the reforma tion; admitting he could write a more true, which would, of course, be a less saleable history of that country. The late Mr. Edmund Burke had made some important researches into one particular period of Irish history, the author's representation of which has given such offence to the British Critic, and from public records had extracted most authentic documents relative to the Protestant massacre, which would have given a very different cast to the complexion of that supposed event. When Dr. L. undertook to write the history of Ireland, Mr. B.

Put