every Catholic Nobleman and Gentleman, by every Bishop, and by every Priest, from Kerry to Derry, from Cork to Donnegal? *

3. Shall we say, that the Catholic Religion of 1810 is different from that of 1645 ?—No-That religion is always uniform, ever one and the same; But the craft of some of its exclusive Doctors will occasionally vary, and Clerical Politicians will fluctuate with the exigencies of times.

If then the Religion of both periods is one and the same Catholic, let us inquire why our Ancestors were excommunicated for adopting those very oaths of Allegiance, for which their Successors are extolled?-If the Catholic Religion recommends and enforces the observance of those oaths of allegiance, how comes it that the Pope's Nuncio, and the Bishops assembled in Synod at Waterford, condemned them in 1645?

4. Let us be honest.-The Catholic Religion has nothing to fear from Sincerity.-Is it true that the exclusive Doctors of Waterford as

* See the note above, pag. 32.

sumed the mask of Religion, under the conduct of a Leader sent by the Court of Rome,

for the purpose of establishing in Ireland the

Ascendancy of the Pope? Is it true that they therefore opposed every attempt made by the Catholic Confederates to conclude a Peace with the Duke of Ormond?-Is it true that they excommunicated, and persecuted, and imprisoned every one who dared to speak in favour of that peace; and by indirectly condemning the principles of affectionate pity for the misfortunes of the Royal Family, which prevailed amongst us at that time, that they sacrificed to the ambition of foreigners those very principles of allegiance which are inculcated by Religion? Is it true in short, that the oaths which are now recommended, were then most zealously, and, forsooth, most devoutly condemned? †

5. Let us inquire.-Hypocrisy and falsehood, whatever mask of piety or sanctity they may assume, will ever betray their own intrinsic incon

sistency and wickedness; whilst truth, ever fair, ever consistent, bids defiance equally to changes of manners, of principles, and of times.

6. Pressed by the exigencies of his affairs in 1643, King Charles I. had repeatedly written, in the course of that year, to his Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Duke of Ormond, to agree to a Cessation of arms, which was earnestly proposed by the Confederate Catholic Gentry and Clergy on behalf of the Catholics of Ireland, and by Lord Clanrickard, Sir Lucas Dillon, and Hu: Oge O'Conor of Ballintober, on behalf of those of Connacht, in 1642.

This application had been repeatedly made in the course of that year; first on the 9th of March; again on the 23d; again on the 19th of May; a fourth time from Kilkenny, in the month of July; and a fifth in October, 1642; so that here could be no doubt of an anxious wish on the part of the Catholics, to put an end to the horrors of a war, which had now, for two years, ravaged every County, laid waste every property, destroyed thousands of both parties,

and was likely to cause the utter desolation of the kingdom.

7. It is acknowledged now by all parties, that the Puritans suppressed these petitions as often and as long as they could; and, when they could not, that they opposed them by every artifice and calumny they could devise; representing all the Catholic Gentry of Ireland, as equally guilty with the Rebels of Ulster; though these wretches, having committed numberless outrages, and, despairing of mercy, had never made any address, never applied for a Cessation.

8. The views of the Puritans are not exaggerated by Carte, who declares that their object was avowedly "the extirpation of the old English "as well as Irish Proprietors, and a general "plantation of the whole kingdom by a new "Colony of their own." That this was their darling object is demonstrated by Warner, and acknowledged by Leland;* and though it were

* Carte's Orm. vol. 1. p. 390.-Sir Lucas Dillon's and Hu: Oge O'Conor's Letter to Lord Clanrickard, March 14, 1641-2. Ormond to the King, Aug. 13, 1642.

denied by both, it would not therefore cease to be as true, as it is an indelible stigma, which nothing short of the generous temper of Irishmen can obliterate. *

9. The King however reflected with his friends, that he had already heard the grievances of the Scotch, who had unquestionably rebelled. He had also declared his readiness to hear and to redress those of the English, who had equally violated the fundamental laws of the monarchy. How then could he pretend to be the Common Parent of all his Subjects, and refuse to hear those of the Irish?-He considered also the utter impossibility of subsisting his army in Ireland, or preserving the Irish Protestants

* "The favourite object both of the Irish Governors, and "of the English Parliament, was the utter extermination of all "the Catholic Inhabitants of Ireland. Their estates were "already marked out and allotted to their conquerors. So "that they and their posterity were consigned to inevitable "ruin." Leland's Hist. of Irel. B. v. c. 5, t. 2. p. 166.

Carte's Ormond p. 391, 394, 408, and repeatedly from the Original correspondence of the Puritans. Compare Desiderata Curiosa Hibern. vol. 2. p. 132, with Castlehaven's and Clanricard's Memoirs, and the latter's Letter to the King, Octob, 26, 1642.