spurned at by the patron to whom it was inscribed*. Judging of it, however, as I used to do, by extracts, and knowing the mischief it occasioned, I really wondered that no intelligent and spirited Irishman should give that complete refutation of the whole which several writers have given of particular parts of it. At length, upon reading the work itself, and observing that it is a mere farago of unconnected passages, borrowed, in all probability, from Orange Newspapers, without plan, order, style, genius, or sentiment, I was no longer surprised that a man of talents and of a liberal mind was not found to undertake the dull and thankless task; since of the most successful refutation of such a work it may with truth be said:

"Nec habet victoria laudem*."

For my part, Sir, I am far from having either the patience or the leisure necessary for exposing the enormous mass of malicious and inflammatory falsehoods which Sir Richard Musgrave has palm

* See a Letter dated Dublin Castle, March 24, 1801, signed E. B. Littlehales, by order of Marquis Cornwallis, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and addressed to Sir R. Musgrave, in which the writer is ordered not to inscribe any future edition of his book to the said nobleman.

† Amongt these are F. Plowden, Esq. in his History of Ireland, vol. iii. Dr. Caulfield, Catholic Bishop of Wexford, in his Reply to the Misrepresentations of Sir R. Musgrave, Edward Hay, Esq. and Theobald M‘Kenna, Esq.

Ovid's Metamor.

ed upon the public. All that I shall do is to present you with a small posey of flowers culled from his savory garden, leaving them to make their natural impression on your sensorium.

"The common Irish," says Sir Richard Musgrave, "are doctrinally taught that they are "bound by their religion to resist the laws and "ordinances of a protestant state, and that an "oath of allegiance is null and void*."-"It "is no less singular than true, that the lower "class of Irish Papists never think their priests

66

can contract any stain or contamination from "the commission of crimes, how heinous so"evert."" They (the rebels) killed one "Coyle, a shoemaker, because he could not cross "himself; but, on finding him to be a heretic, "they compelled him to cross himself as well as "he could with his left hand, (his right hand "being disabled by a wound) superstitiously

believing that the doing so would inevitably "doom him to everlasting damnation ‡." Here we are told that a poor heretical shoemaker was murdered for not crossing himself, and yet that he did cross himself! and that he was supposed to be damned, not for his heresy, but for

* See Hist. &c. p. 148. Each of these assertions is directly contrary to what the Irish are doctrinally taught in their General Cate chism, printed by Fitzpatrick, Dublin, pp. 28, 29, 30, 4th edit.

+ Ibid. p. 545. This slander stands in opposition to the whole tenor of the Catholic Catechism, which makes no exception with re spect to the obligation of doing good and avoiding evil.

Ibid. p. 254.

"crossing himself as well as he could!"-"The "practice of putting red tape round the necks "of popish children prevailed in the counties of "Wicklow and Wexford, to enable the rebels "to discriminate protestant from popish chil"dren in the massacre intended of the former*." -If this be true, how much louder must have been the lamentation of mothers throughout Wicklow and Wexford when the rebels became masters of those countries, than that which was formerly heard in Bethlehem of Juda! and how must these wretches have out-heroded Herod himself in the murder of innocents! But all this is left to our conjecture; for, unfortunately, Sir Richard has forgotten to put a word of it down in his book. In the mean time, as far as my information extends, not only the children, but also their mothers, were left uninjured by the rebels. Not a single protestant female was affronted by any of them, whilst the yeomen and king's troops were infamous for their conduct to catholic women. To return, however, to the tape: it is plain that our well-informed historian has mistaken the strings with which the poor people are accustomed to tie the gospel of St. John round the necks of their children, for badges of protection from slaughter. And surely the historian, who, as a custom-house officer, is accustomed to carry about the gospel of St. John in his pocket, and to force poor merchants and tradesmen, with

-

Ibid. p. 317.

uncovered heads, to bow down and kiss the leather and paper of which it consists, will not accuse catholic women of idolatry merely for honouring St. John's gospel!" The Celts immolated human "victims to the Deity, and the Irish, who are of "that race, follow the same practice, and both on the score of religion*."-From this passage we learn that Sir Richard Musgrave, though an Irishman, is not a Celtic, or aboriginal Irishman, and that he does not approve of murdering men in honour of God. Of what breed he really is, heralds, I apprehend, will determine with less research than divines will what religion he is of. In the mean time, the religion of nature will tell him that it is base and wicked to murder a whole people in their reputation, from the price of whose sweat and blood he has risen to some distinction, and still draws so comfortable a salary! "In the year 1790 the translation of a "book, entitled, The General History of the Church, from her Birth to her Triumphant "State in Heaven, was printed in Dublin by J. "Méhain, a popish bookseller. It was written.

66

originally at Rome, by a sanguinary bigot of "the name of Pastorini. This writer defends "and expresses his approbation of all the mas

1

sacres of Protestants which ever took place in "France and Ireland. This piece of folly and "blasphemy was published to encourage the mass "of Irish Papists to join in the conspiracy.

*Hist. of Diff. Rebellions, p. 374.

"which was formed so early, and in the massacre which was to succeed it in 1798*." —I have quoted this passage, to shew the ease and confidence with which Sir Richard Musgrave, who professes to make "truth his polar star," and to be so anxious to investigate it in every matter, is capable of palming upon his reader a whole string of falsehoods. For, 1st, This History of the Church is not a translation, but the original text. 2dly, It was not originally written at Rome, but in England. 3dly, The author was not a sanguinary bigot, but a most mild and enlightened Christian, as the whole tenor of his life and writings prove. 4thly, His name was not Pastorini, this being a inere allusion to his mis nistry, but the R. Rev. Charles Walmesley, D. D. F. R. S. having been one of the scientific men who were employed in correcting the old style. 5thly, The work does not express the most remote approbation of any massacre, whether French or Irish. 6thly, It consists neither of folly nor of blasphemy, but of a most ingenious and learned exposition of the book of revelationst. Lastly, It was not published to excite an Irish conspiracy or massacre, neither of which could be foreseen at the time of the publication; but to excite all Christians to lead a holy life, and to prepare for the coming of that awful Judge, be fore whom Sir Richard Musgrave will be ar

* Hist. of Diff. Reb. p. 634.

† See the 2d English edition, with additional Remarks and Elucidations by the Author, printed by Coghlan in 1798.

M