C

Under this censure fall the major part of those who have written on the affairs of Ireland, whether in the imposing form of histories, or political pamphlets, and anniversary sermons. The leading object with most of them has been to fan and foster the most illiberal and unfounded prejudices,—to support and justify the oppression of a lordly aristocracy, who, for a century and a half, have, with the most unfeeling tyranny, rode rough-shod over the great mass of the nation,"and to hold up that mass as objects of abhorrence. There are exceptions: a few writers have dared to utter bold truths, however unpalatable to this aristocracy. But it is a melancholy fact, that, so inveterate has Prejudice been on these topics, and so difficult to shake off her iron yoke, that some of the best-intentioned writers on Irish affairs have fallen into many of the most egregious errors of their predecessors.

I shall give one instance, though rather out of place here. The fairest and most upright English historian of the calamitous period of the civil war of 1641, is the Rev. Ferdinando Warner. He has, however, fallen into very great errors. In the account, for instance, which he gives of the massacre (as it is termed) of 1641, he colours as highly, and uses almost as extravagant terms, as those who asserted that there were one hundred and fifty-four thousand murdered in three months; or as others, who carried the number to three hundred thousand; or as Milton, who extends it

E

to above six hundred thousand! And yet, wonderful to tell, when, towards the close of his work, he goes into the examination of the evidence, he finds it so ridiculous and inadmissible, that he rejects by far the greater part of it, and reduces the whole number murdered to about four thousand. Thus, his facts not only do not warrant his inferences, but absolutely destroy them; for it is perfectly obvious, that if there were but four thousand murdered, the numberless cruelties he so elaborately portrays could not possibly have taken place.

"There is no credit to be given to any thing that was said by these people; which had not others' evidence to confirm it: and the reason why so many idle silly tales were registered, of what this body heard another body say, as to swell the collection to two-and-thirty thick volumes, in folio, closely written, it is easier to conjecture, than it is to commend."

993

"Setting aside all opinions and calculations in this affair, which, besides their uncertainty, are without any precision as to the space of time in which the murders were committed, the evidence, from the depositions in the manuscript above mentioned, stands thus :-The number of people killed, upon positive evidence, collected in two years after the insurrection broke out, adding them all together, amounts only to two thousand one hundred and nine; on the reports of other Protestants, one thousand six hundred and nineteen more; and on the report of some of the rebels themselves, a further number of three hundred; the whole making four thousand and twentyeight. Besides these murders, there is, in the same collection, evidence, on the report of others, of eight thousand killed by bad usage and if we should allow that the cruelties of the

3 Warner, 146.

Irish, out of war, extended to these numbers, which, considering the nature of several of the depositions, I think in my conscience we cannot, yet to be impartial we must allow, that there is no pretence for laying a greater number to their charge. This account is also corroborated by a letter, which I copied out of the Council Books at Dublin, written on the fifth of May, sixteen hundred and fifty-two, ten years after the beginning of the rebellion, from the Parliament Commissioners in Ireland to the English Parliament. After exciting them to further severity against the Irish, as being afraid "their behaviour towards this people may never sufficiently avenge their murders and massacres, and lest the Parliament might shortly be in pursuance of a speedy settlement of this nation, and thereby some tender concessions might be concluded," the Commissioners tell them that it appears "besides eight hunhundred forty-eight families, there were killed, hanged, burned, and drowned, six thousand and sixty-two.'

These paragraphs, written by an enlightened and independent Protestant historian, after an elaborate investigation of the subject, and with every conceivable advantage for eliciting truth from the mass of falsehood and perjury with which it had been previously overwhelmed for a century, are amply adequate to sink into contempt, and to bury in eternal oblivion, the fabu lous accounts of nearly all the other historians, who have made the welkin ring with the tremendous romances of massacres.

I shall, in the course of this work, collect various instances of a similar discrepancy, which abound in the histories of Irish affairs.

In the whole range of history, there is not probably a period that holds out stronger inducements for discussion, that affords a more fertile

4 Warner, 297.

H

field, but that is attended with more difficulty,' than that of Ireland, during the first half of the seventeenth century, to which I principally wish to call the attention of the reader.

But the sinister views or the indolence of historians, are by no means the only rocks on which history, so far as its noble and legitimate purposes are concerned, is in danger of shipwreck. There are others, equally formidable. With the most enlightened mind, and the purest intentions, the task of the historian is extremely arduous; and he will, for want of proper charts, be occasionally, perhaps frequently, driven upon the shoals and quicksands of error and falsehood. So much of the real character of events, and of the actors in them, depends on numberless minute circumstances, which elude observation, or are liable to most extravagant misconception, that it is obvious, historians are often obliged to substitute conjecture for fact; and hence profound observers have styled histories "splendid romances;" which designation unfortunately applies to a large portion of them.

In the accounts given of the same occurrences, by cotemporaneous writers, of adverse parties or hostile nations, there is often such a total discrepancy, that they hardly agree in any thing but the dates, and the names of persons and places : were these stricken out, it could not be conceived that the narratives had reference to the same events. And the most disgusting and awful trait

in the affair is, that these contradictory and irreconcilable accounts are frequently bolstered up, on both sides, by the solemnity of appeals to heaven, in the form of oaths, taken by persons, who, from their standing in society, ought to be above the suspicion, not merely of perjury, but of the slightest departure from truth.

As one appropriate example is of more avail than a long train of reasoning, I wish to call the reader's attention to a striking and recent case, which places the difficulty I have stated in the strongest point of light, and cannot fail to impress him with a clear idea of its serious importance. On the 16th of May, 1811, a rencontre took place between two vessels of war, American and English, the President and Little Belt, in which the latter lost a number of men, and was in imminent danger of sinking. In evéry material fact, the accounts of the commanders were entirely different; and to such an extravagant degree, that there is no room to ascribe the discordance to mistake. There must have been clear, deliberate, and disgraceful falsehood on one side or the other. There is no other alternative.

Commodore Rodgers stated, that he hailed first, that his inquiries, what was the name of the vessel, &c. were returned by similar inquiries, and that, when he repeated his hail, he was saluted by a shot, which he of course returned;-that then three others were fired by