self. To God, then, let us lave him. Now, hear me-you must swear in His Presence that you will have neither act nor part in doin' him an injury that you will not shed his blood, nor allow it to be shed by others, as far as you can prevent it.

Nogher rubbed his chin gravely, and almost smiled at what he considered to be a piece of silly nonsense on the part of Connor. He determined, therefore, to satisfy his scruples as well as he could; but, let the consequence be what it might, to evade such an oath.

66

Why, Connor," said he, "surely if you go to that, we can have no ill will against the d-n villain, an' as you don't wish it, we'll dhrop the thing; so now make your mind aisy, for another word you or any one else won't ever hear about it."

"And you won't injure the man ?" "Hut no," replied Nogher with a gravity whose irony was barely perceptible, "what would we murdher him for, now that you don't wish it. I never had any particular wish to see my own funeral."

"And now, Nogher," he replied, many a day have we spent together you are one of my oldest friends. I suppose this is the last time you will ever see Connor O'Donovan; however don't, man-don't be cast down; you will hear from me, I hope, and hear that I am well too."

He uttered this with a smile which cost him an effort; for on looking into the face of his faithful old friend, he saw its muscles working under the influence of strong feeling-or, I should rather say, deep sorrow-which he felt anxious, by a show of cheerfulness, to remove. The fountains, however, of the old servant's heart were opened, and, after some ineffectual attempts to repress his grief, he fell upon Connor's neck, and wept aloud.

"Tut, Nogher," said Connor, "surely it's glad you ought to be, instead of sorry. What would you have done if my first sentence had been acted upon ?"

"I'm glad for your sake," replied the other, "but I'm now sorry for my own. You will live, Connor, and you may yet be happy; but he that often held you in his arms-that often played with you, and that next to your father and your mother, you loved betther than any other livin'-he, poor Nogher, will never see his boy more."

On uttering these words, he threw himself again upon Connor's neck, and we are not ashamed to say that their tears flowed together.

"I'll miss you, Connor, dear; I'll not see your face at fair or market, nor on the Chapel-green of a Sunday. Your poor father will break his heart, and the mother's eye will never more have an opportunity of being proud out of her son. It's hard upon me to part wid you, Connor, but it can't be helped; I only ax you to remember Nogher, that, you know, loved you as if you wor his own; remimber me, Connor, of an odd time. I never thought-oh, God, I never thought to see this day. No wondher-oh, no wondher that the fair young crature should be pale and worn, an' sick at heart. I love her now, an' ever will, as well as I did yourself. I'll never see her, Connor, widout thinkin' heavily of him that her heart was set upon, an' that will then be far away from her an' from all that ever loved him."

"Nogher," replied Connor, "I'm not without hope that-but this-this is folly. You know I have a right to be thankful to God and the goodness of government for sparin' my life. Now, farewell-it is for ever, Nogher, an' it is a tryin' word to-day; but you know that every one goin' to America must say it; so think that I'm goin' there, an' it won't signify."

tration and the extraordinary powers which the Legislature has confided to his Excellency for the good government of Ireland. The representations of the Reviewer upon the first of these subjects are incomplete and unfaithful; on the second they are partial; on the third they are delusive; on the fourth they are correct.

The account which the Reviewer is pleased to give of the principle upon which England has conducted her government of this country, has neither novelty nor truth to recommend it. England," he writes, " had but one object in view-the total subjection, the commercial annihilation of Ireland. For the attainment of this, all the constitutional laws, the whole spirit of government in the latter,* were peculiar ly designed. For this it was that an attempt was first made to disqualify the Irish for equality, by refusing them the privileges of the English; and then, as circumstances changed, to oppose the natural growth of Ireland's strength by the concentrated force of a small party. Neither the object nor the means were ever defended on principles of justice. The end was deemed expedient, and was supposed to justify the mode by which it was reached." This representation of the policy of England has been, and continues to be, substantially, so frequently given, that it might be stereotyped, with advantage, for the use of the factious; so falsely given, that the testimonies adduced to corroborate refute it; and yet, owing to the prevailing neglect of Irish history, given with so good effect for the purpose of its contrivers, as to have procured many adherents to the cause of the enemies of England, and to have embarrassed and dispirited many amongst the most faithful of her friends.

That this country has not been governed in a spirit of kindliness and wisdom, is most true; but that its evils are ascribable less to the power than to the want of power of England, is equally susceptible of demonstration. There is, we admit, one great evil which has been visited upon Ireland by the power of the stronger kingdom. It is the evil which England was pleased to call the "Reformation"-not the Reformation instituted in the time of Henry VIII., and carried out during

the reigns of his successors, Edward and Elizabeth; but that which was accomplished by a strong hand in the days when Adrian gave his predecessor, Henry II., a commission to enlarge the borders of the Church. "The King," as the Jesuit Campion writes,t "not unmindfull of his charge, enjoyned by the Popes Adrian and Alexander, ENTRED INTO A REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH: and mooved the famous Bishop of Lismore, Saint Christian, their Legate, to call a Synode at Cashell, wherein they defined eight Articles." Of these Articles, as Campion recites them, the last establishes our solitary complaint against the exercise of English power. It is, "that, forasmuch as God hath universally delivered them into the government of the English, they should in all points, rites, and ceremonies, accord with the Church of England." The Norman conquest had compelled the English Church to submit, however reluctantly, to Papal power; and conquest becomes recognised in the Synod of Cashel also, as having reduced, under the same despotism, the previously independent church of Ireland. This is our complaint against the exercise of English power-that it broke down the National Church, and erected the Church of Rome upon its ruins. The only satisfaction which our adversaries seem to require, is a second exercise of the same authority, by which the rising Protestantism of this our day should be laid prostrate, and Romanism confirmed in its smitten and tottering ascendancy.

The spirit of Papal intrigue and domination provided well that the conquest thus avowed to have been made for the aggrandisement of Rome, should add as little as possible to the stability and power of England. A new interest, an interest alien to the improvement of the country and its people, was created. The power of the British throne was not strong enough to control the movements of (to use Dr. Phelan's happy expression) the Hierocrasy which it had set up-the wisdom of the British government was not sufficiently searching to explore the purposes and plans of a great ecclesiastical conspiracy; and, in consequence, Ireland remained a foreign and a discontented country, while yet the dishonor

of the very measures which held it in angry estrangement, by dexterous and dishonest artifices, was cast upon the well-meant, but generally ill-timed, counsels adopted by England.

We will illustrate our meaning by a single example; but, from the circumstances under which we cite it, we are persuaded to believe that the example will be received as an argument. The proof upon which the Edinburgh Reviewer rests for the truth of his assertion, that "England had but one object in view, the total subjection, the commercial annihilation of Ireland," is, the refusal to grant to Ireland the benefit of British law.

"The Irish were then, as now, looked upon as unfit for British institutions, and removed as aliens beyond the influence of British law. So far from the Irish being unwilling to have the English laws they even sought to purchase them. Edward I. consented to a proposal of this kind' Provided always,' to use the words of his reply, that the general consent of our people, or at least of the Prelates and nobles of that land, well affected towards us, shall uniformly concur in their behalf. But the great Lords of Ireland, says Sir John Davies, had informed the King that the Irish might not be naturalised without dainage and prejudice to themselves and the Crown.' After citing this proof of indifference to the wants and desires of the Irish people, the Reviewer proceeds "Many are the subsequent instances, too, that might be adduced in the reigns of the Edwards and the Henrys, of like attempts, similarly frustrated, by those whose selfish interest it was to make the Irish appear disqualified for liberal or civil institutions. So early do we observe the growth of that mischievous ascendancy, which even still finds its apologists in many great Lords and Prelates of our time."

Thus it appears that the rejection of the Irish memorial, praying that the benefits of English law might be extended to natives of Ireland, is the proof on which the Reviewer relies for the truth of his charge against England. Other in stances might be adduced, but this one is preferred. The others, too, are similar in kind, and exposing agencies and delinquencies of a similar charac

History of the Policy, &c. &c., p. 35.

ter. If we can, therefore, discover the agents who succeeded in impeding, in this selected instance, the extension of British law in Ireland, we discover also the class of agents who were uniformly successful in rendering our countrymen aliens.

Who, then, were the individuals to whom the denial of justice to Ireland in the days of Edward I. should be ascribed? They were the Prelates and Mitred Abbots of the Church which England had reformed into Romanism. The facts of the case are detailed by Dr. Phelan, in his admirable "History of the Policy of the Church of Rome in Ireland." It is true that Irishmen petitioned to be admitted to the benefit of English law-it is true that Edward recommended their petition strongly to the favourable consideration of the Prelates and Peers in Ireland-it is true, we believe, that Sir John Davies made the representation ascribed to him by the Reviewer; but it is also true, that the Reviewer has narrowly overlooked, if not suppressed, the circumstances which point out the authors of the "injustice to Ireland."

In reply to the letter from Edward I., recommending the Irish petition to his Barons, Ufford, the Irish Governor, stated "that the time was unsuitable; that far the greater number of the Barons were absent from the seat of government, upon the business of the State or the defence of their lands, and that many of the others were minors; that it would therefore be impossible to collect an assembly sufficiently numerous or respectable for so grave a deliberation." * It would appear that, at this time, the Spiritual, preponderated above the Lay, Peers, as the contrivance of Edward III. to procure a majority, by calling gentlemen to the Upper House who served the King's pur. pose under the title of Barons, and were afterwards called Baronets, abundantly testifies. Having thus, ordinarily, a superiority in the House of Lords, their power would have been irresistible, when numerous absences had diminished the strength of the Lay Peerage. An opportunity was given them to exercise their power for the advantage of the community. A second mandate, which the writer in the Edinburgh Review has not thought fit to notice, was addressed by Edward

"to the Archbishops, Bishops, Ab. bots, Priors, Counts, Barons, Knights, and other English of his land of Ireland." It intimates, very plainly, the King's desire to grant the petition of the Irish, if it could be granted without detriment to the interests of the country, and of his English subjects; and it directs that the absence of any Peers shall not cause delay or prejudice to the deliberations of those whom he directs to assemble. " And you shall not be moved to omit this by reason of the absence of those Peers who may be detained away, or of those who are under age or in a state of wardenship ;so that, after full deliberation, we may take such course in this behalf as to us and our council shall seem expedient. "Given at Westminster, September 10, 1280."

Thus, as Dr. Phelan observes, "Ireland was at the mercy of its Prelates." "But the canon law was the only code which they desired to establish generally, and the law of England was even then too favorable to liberty, not to be viewed with alarm by men who aimed at despotic power. On the one hand, they wished for a continuance of the inequality between the races; because, in fact, it was only a gradation of servitude, and kept the ascendancy of the Church upon a higher pedestal. On the other, they could not tolerate a measure which, by diffusing through all classes a spirit of spontaneous attachment to the State, might diminish their own political importance; there was to be no loyalty, of which they were not the mediators, and while overt acts of rebellion were occasionally restrained, a spirit was to be kept alive which would render their constant interference indispensable." The supplication of the Irish was despised-the benevolent designs of Edward were frustrated. "The great Lords of Ireland" (i. e., in this instance the Peers Ecclesiastical,) "had informed the King that the Irish might not be naturalised without damage and prejudice to themselves and to the crown." The subsequent troubles of Edward's reign, the tumults in Wales having broken out immediately after his second mandate to the Peers of Ireland, exonerate that Monarch from the blame of not continuing his endeavours, after they had been a second time evaded, and persevering until he had carried his good

Edinburgh Review, October, p. 223.

intentions into effect. The blame of the abominable transaction should fall, undivided, on the Prelates, who, having always the ascendancy which learning, and habits of business, and spiritual influence, gave them, had now the more sensible advantage of an overwhelming majority. And yet, the guilt of their unpardonable selfishness and treachery is imputed to the very party they betrayed, and is chosen as furnishing the one instance of cruelty and oppression by which the writer in the Edinburgh Review would prove his false accusation against England. So profitable has the indifference of legislators to the history of Irish affairs rendered the calumnies flagitiously and perseveringly repeated by the party friendly to the Church of Rome, and inveterately hostile to British connection.

We have little more to say on the policy displayed, in former days, in the conduct of England towards this country. We admit that the system of government was impolitic as it regarded one kingdom, and unjust towards the other. So far we agree with the censor in the Edinburgh Review; but, even on the showing of that uninformed or indiscreet champion of Earl Mulgrave, we affirm, that the iniquity which he hastily ascribes to the English, is exclusively, or primarily, the attribute of the Popish party; and that England is scarcely farther chargeable with the evils inflicted on this unhappy country, than she became by destroying the independence of the National Church, and exalting to power and consequence the abettors and the instruments of Romanism. England is guilty of having evoked a spirit of evil which she had not the power to vanquish or dismiss. So far, scarcely farther, she is chargeable with the evils of which she was thus indirectly the author.

"No measure in favour of any public interest during the reign of that" (the old policy) "was ever given to Ireland, except as a concession to the fears of England." So writes the Reviewer. The daring untruth almost tempts us to exhibit its falsehood by an enumeration of beneficial measures.We are reminded of Strafford and Ormond, contending with unparalleled difficulties to benefit a people obstinate against improvement. We remember the complaints against a prohibition to

† Ibid. p. 226.