authentic history. I need do no more than state the conclusions which he enunciates :

"I think I have said enough to justify me in refusing to accept Giraldus's history of the Irish and of their English invaders as sober, truthful history." And again he writes: "My good friend and pre-labourer in editing these volumes of Giraldus's works (Mr. Brewer) says of the Expugnatio, that Giraldus would seem to have regarded his subject rather as a great epic, which undoubtedly it was, than a sober relation of facts occurring in his own days. . . . . This is a most true and characteristic description of Giraldus's treatment of his subject: the treatise certainly is, in great measure, rather a poetical fiction than a prosaic truthful history."

I must further remark as another result from Rev. Mr. Dimock's researches, that the old text of Giraldus in reference to Pope Adrian's Bull, from which Mr. O'Callaghan's citations are made, is now proved to be singularly defective. I will give the pithy words of that learned editor, which are stronger than any I would wish to use: No more absurd nonsensical a muddle was ever blundered into by the most stupid of abbreviators."3 It is of course from the ancient MSS. of the work that this corruption of the old text is mainly proved; but it should indeed be apparent from an attentive study of the very printed text itself, for, as Mr. Dimock remarks, being accurately translated, its words "marvellously contrive to make Henry, in 1172, apply for and procure this privilege from Pope Adrian, who died in 1159, and with equally marvellous confusion they represent John of Salisbury, who had been Henry's agent in procuring this privilege in 1155, as sent, not to Ireland, but to Rome, for the purpose of publishing the Bull at Waterford in 1174 or 1175."4

I will only add, regarding the testimony of Giraldus Cambrensis, that in the genuine text of the Expugnatio Hibernica he places on the same level the Bull of Adrian IV. and that of Alexander III. Nevertheless, as we will just now see, he elsewhere admits that there were many and grave suspicions that the supposed Bull of Alexander had never been granted by the Holy See.

The other names mentioned together with Giraldus will not detain us long. They are all writers who only incidentally make reference to Irish matters, and in these they naturally enough take Giraldus for their guide.

1" Giraldi Cambrensis Opera," under the direction of the Master of the Rolls. Vol. v. London 1867. Preface, page lxix.

* Ibid. page lxx. Ibid. page xliii.

4 Ibid.

Ralph de Diceto wrote about 1210, and like Giraldus received his honours at the hands of Henry the Second. Irish historians have not yet accepted him as a guide in reference to matters connected with our country. For instance, the Synod of Cashel of 1172, which was one of the most important events of that period of our history, is described by him as held in Lismore.

Roger de Wendover was a monk of St. Alban's, who died 6th of May, 1237. His "Flores Historiarum" begin with the creation of the world, and end two years before his death in 1235. He merely compendiates other sources down to the beginning of the thirteenth century. It is only the subsequent portion of his work which is held in esteem by our annalists.

Matthew Paris was a brother religious of Roger de Wendover in St. Alban's, where he died in 1259. Mr. Coxe, who edited a portion of the "Flores Historiarum" for the English Historical Society (1841-1844), has proved that down to the year 1235 Matthew Paris only compendiates the work of Wendover. At all events his "Historia Major" is of very little weight. A distinguished German historian of the present day, Scrhödl, thus conveys his strictures on its merits :

"Se trompe a chaque instant, et, entraîné par son aveugle rage de critique, donne pour des faits historiques des anecdotes piquantes qui n'ont aucune authenticité, des légendes déraisonnables et toutes sortes de détails suspects, exagérés et calomnieux."

To the testimony of such writers we may well oppose the silence of Peter de Blois, secretary of Henry the Second, though chronicling the chief events of Henry's reign, and the silence of all our native annalists, not one of whom ever mentions the Bull of Adrian.

3. But it is time to pass on to the third argument which is advanced by our opponents. It is quite true that we have some letters or Bulls of Pope Alexander III., connected with the Irish invasion. Three of these, written in 1172, are certainly authentic. They are preserved in the "Liber Niger Scaccarii," from which they were edited by Hearne, and in later times they have been accurately printed by Mr. O'Callaghan and Rev. Dr. Kelly. They are addressed respectively to the Irish bishops, King Henry, and the Irish princes. So far, however, are these letters from corroborating the genuineness of Pope Adrian's Bull, that they furnish an unanswerable argument for wholly setting it aside as groundless and unauthentic. They are entirely devoted to the circumstances of the invasion of our island and its results, and yet the only

title that they recognise in Henry is "that monarch's power and the submission of the Irish chieftains." They simply ignore any Bull of Adrian, and any investiture from the Holy See.

There is, however, another Bull of Alexander III., preserved by Giraldus Cambrensis which is supposed to have been granted at the request of King Henry in 1172, and is confirmatory of the gift and investiture made by Pope Adrian: it Mr. O'Callaghan holds that this Bull of Alexander III. sets at rest for ever all doubt as to the genuineness of the grant made by Adrian IV.1

The question at once suggests itself:-Is this Bull of Alexander III. to be itself admitted as genuine and authentic? If its own authority be doubtful, surely it cannot suffice to prop up the tottering cause of Adrian's Bull. Now, its style is entirely different from that of the three authentic letters of which we have just spoken. Quite in opposition to these letters "the only authority alleged in it for Henry's right to Ireland is the Bull of Adrian," as Dr. Lanigan2 allows. The genuine letters are dated from Tusculum, where, as we know from other sources, Alexander actually resided in 1172. On the other hand, this confirmatory Bull, though supposed to have been obtained in 1172, is dated from Rome, thus clearly betraying the hand of the impostor. Such was the disturbed condition of Rome at that period that it was impossible for His Holiness to reside there; and hence we find him sometimes holding his Court in Tusculum, at other times in Segni, Anagni, or Ferrara. It was only when these disturbances were quelled that Alexander III. was able, in 1178, to return in triumph to his capital.3

But there is still another reason why we must doubt of the authority of this confirmatory Bull. The researches of Rev. Mr. Dimock have proved what Ussher long ago remarked, that this Bull of Alexander originally formed part of the work of Giraldus Cambrensis, although later copyists, and the first editors, including the learned Camden, recognising its spuriousness, excluded it from Giraldus's text. The matter is now set at rest, for the ancient MSS. clearly prove that it originally formed part of the "Expugnatio Hibernica." Thanks, however, to the zeal and industry of Mr. Brewer, we are at present acquainted with another work of Giraldus, written at a later period than his Historical Tracts on Ireland. It is entitled "De Principis Instructione," and was edited in 1846 for the "Anglia Christiana" Society. Now, in this treatise Giraldus "Macariae Excidium," p. 247. 2 Eccles. Hist. iv., 224.

Mozzoni "Tavole Cronologiche," Rome, 1867, ad. an. 1179. 4" Opera Giraldi," vol. v., page 318

66

refers to the Bull of Alexander III., of which we treat, but he prefixes the following remarkable words: "Some assert or imagine that this Bull was obtained from the Pope; but others deny that it was ever obtained from the Pontiff." "Sicut a quibusdam impetratum asseritur aut confingitur; ab aliis autem unquam impetratum fuisse negatur." Surely these words should suffice to convince the most sceptical that the fact of the Bull of Alexander being recited by Giraldus in his "Expugnatio Hibernica" is a very unsatisfactory ground on which to rest the argument for its genuineness.

4. As regards the Synod of Waterford in 1175, and the statement that the Bulls of Adrian and Alexander were published therein for the first time, all these matters rest on the very doubtful authority of Giraldus Cambrensis. We have no record in the Irish Annals that any general meeting of the Irish Bishops was held in Waterford in 1175. The circumstances of the country rendered such a Synod impossible; for war and dissensions raged throughout the length and breadth of our island. It was in that year, however, that the first Bishop was appointed by King Henry to the See of Waterford, as Ware informs us and, perhaps, we would not err were we to suppose that the Synod so pompously set forth by Giraldus, was a convention of the Anglo-Norman clergy of Waterford under their newly-appointed Prelate, all of whom would, no doubt, joyfully accept the official documents presented in the name of the King by Nicholas of Wallingford.

Leland supposes that this Synod of Waterford was not held till 1177. The disturbed state of the kingdom, however, rendered a Synod equally impossible in that year, and all our ancient authorities utterly ignore such a Synod.

5. In the Remonstrance addressed by the Irish princes and people to John XXII., about the year 1315, repeated mention is made of the Bull of Adrian. But then it is only cited there as a conclusive argument ad hominem against the English traducers of our nation : “lest the bitter and venomous calumnies of the English, and their unjust and unfounded attacks upon us and all who support our rights, may in any degree influence the mind of your Holiness." The Bull of Adrian IV. was published by the English, and set forth by them as the charter-deed of their rule in Ireland, yet they violated in a most flagrant manner all the conditions of that Papal grant. The Irish princes and people in self-defence had now made over the sovereignty of the island to Edward de Bruce, brother of the Scottish King; they style him their adopted monarch, and they pray the Pope to give a formal sanction to their proceed

1 De Princip. Instruct., page 53.

ings. Thus, throughout the whole Remonstrance the Bull of Adrian is used as a telling argument against the injustice of the invaders, and as a precedent which John XXII. might justly follow in sanctioning the transfer of the Irish crown to Edward Bruce. But in all this the historian will find no grounds for asserting the genuineness of the supposed Bulls of Adrian or Alexander. We will just now see that at this very time the Irish people universally regarded these Bulls as spurious inventions of their English enemies.

6.-Baronius, the eminent ecclesiastical historian, inserts in his invaluable Annals the Bull of Adrian IV. "from a Vatican Manuscript." This is the sixth argument advanced by Mr. O'Callaghan.

It is not my intention to question in any way the services rendered by Cardinal Baronius to the cause of our Church History; but at the same time no one will deny that considerable progress has been made in historical research during the past three hundred and fifty years, and many documents are now set aside which were then accepted as unquestioned on the supposed reliable authority of preceding chroniclers.

In the present instance we are not left in doubt as to the source whence Baronius derived his information regarding Adrian's supposed Bull. During my stay in Rome I took occasion to inquire whether the MSS. of the eminent annalist, which are happily preserved, indicated the special "Vatican Manuscript" referred to in his printed text, and I was informed by the learned archivist of the Vatican, Monsignor Theiner, who is at present engaged in giving a new edition, and continuing the great work of Baronius, that the Codex Vaticanus referred to is a MS. copy of the History of Matthew Paris, which is preserved in the Vatican Library. Thus it is the testimony of Matthew Paris alone that here confronts us in the pages of Baronius, and no new argument can be taken from the words of the eminent annalist. Relying on the same high authority, I am happy to state that nowhere in the private archives or among the private papers of the Vatican, or in the Regesta, which Jaffe's researches have made so famous, or in the various indices of the Pontifical Letters, can a single trace be found of the supposed Bulls of Adrian IV. and Alexander III.

7. The last argument advanced by Mr. O'Callaghan will not detain us long. The insertion or omission of such ancient records in the Bullarium is a matter that depends wholly on the critical skill of the editor. Curious enough, in one edition of the Bullarium, as may be seen in the references of Dr. Lanigan, Adrian's Bull is inserted, whilst no mention is made