by St. Celsus, and again by Gregorius, whose name is a name high up in the martyrology of the time. We find in Dublin St. Laurence O'Toole of glorious memory. We find Felix and Christian, Bishops of Lismore; Catholicus, of Down; Augustine, of Waterford; every man of them famed not only in Ireland but throughout the whole Church of God for the greatness of their learning and for the brightness of their sanctity. We find at the same time Irish monks, famous for their learning as men of their day, and as famous for their sanctity. In the great Irish Benedictine monastery of Ratisbon, we find Dionysius, Isaac, Gervase, Conrad, Marianus, Christian, and Gregory. Maurus and twelve other Irish monks in the monastery of Maniurgghen. Macurius with twelve Irish companions at Wurzburg; all of them men celebrated for their holiness and learning. We find, moreover, that the very year before the Normans arrived in Ireland, in 1168, a great council was held at Athboy, thirteen thousand Irishmen representing the nation; thirteen thousand warriors on horseback attended the council of the bishops and priests, with their chiefs, to take the law they made from them, and hear whatever the Church commanded them to obey. What was the result of all this? Ah! my friends, I am not speaking from any prejudiced point of view. It has been said "that if Mr. Froude gives the history of Ireland from an outside view, of course Father Burke would have to give it from an inside view." Now, I am not giving it from an inside view. I am only quoting English

authorities. I find, in this very interval between the Danish and Saxon invasions, Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, writing to O'Brien, King of Munster, congratulating him on the religious spirit of his people. I find St. Anselm, one of the greatest saints that ever lived, and Archbishop of Canterbury under William Rufus, writing to the King of Munster; "I give thanks to God," he says, " for the many good things we hear of your Highness, and especially for the profound peace which the subjects of your realm enjoy. All good men who hear this give thanks to God and pray that He may grant you length of days." The man that wrote that, perhaps, was thinking while he was writing of the awful anarchy, impiety, and darkness of the most dense and terrible kind which covered his own land of England in the reign of the Red King, William Rufus. And yet we are told indeed by Mr. Froude a good judge he seems to be of religion, for he says in one of his lectures: "Religion is a thing of which one man knows as much as another, and none of us know anything at all "-that the Irish were without religion, at the very time when the Irish Church was forming itself into the model of sanctity which it was at the time of the Danish invasion, when Roderic O'Connor, King of Connaught, was acknowledged by every prince and chieftain in the land to be the high king or Ardrigh. Now, as far as regards what he says: "That Ireland was without morality," I have but little to say. I will answer this by one fact. A King of Ireland stole another man's wife. His name,

accursed! was Dermot MacMurragh, King of Leinster. Every chieftain in Ireland, every man rose up, and banished him from Irish soil as unworthy to live on it. If these were the immoral people; if these were the bestial, incestuous, depraved race which they are described by leading Norman authorities, may I ask you might not King Dermot turn round and say: "Why are you making war upon me; is it not the order of the day? Have I not as good a right to be faithless as anybody else?" Now comes Mr. Froude and says, "The Normans were sent to Ireland to teach the Ten Commandments to the Irish." In the language of Shakespeare I would say " Oh! Jew, I thank thee for that word." In these Ten Commandments the three most important are, in their relation to human society, "Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." The Normans, even in Mr. Froude's view, had no right or title under Heaven to one square inch of the soil of Ireland. They came to take what was not their own, what they had no right, no title to. And they came as robbers and thieves to teach the Ten Commandments to the Irish people, amongst them the commandment "Thou shalt not steal." Henry landed in Ireland in 1171. He was after murdering the holy Archbishop of Canterbury, St. Thomas à Becket. They scattered his brains before the foot of the altar, before the Blessed Sacrament, at the vesper hour. The blood of the saint and martyr was upon his hands when he came to Ireland to teach the Irish, "Thou shalt not kill."

What was the occasion of their coming? When the adulterer was driven from the sacred soil of Erin, as one unworthy to profane it by his tread, he went over to Henry and procured from him a letter permitting any of his subjects that chose to embark for Ireland to do so, and there to reinstate the adulterous tyrant, King Dermot, in his kingdom. They came then as protectors and helpers of adultery to teach the Irish people, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.”

Mr. Froude tells us they were right-that they were the apostles of purity, honesty, and clemency, and Mr. Froude "is an honorable man." Ah! but he says, "remember, my good Dominican friend, that if they came to Ireland, they came because the Pope sent them." Henry, in the year 1175, produced a letter which he said he received from Pope Adrian IV., which commissioned him to go to Ireland, and permitted him there, according to the terms of the letter, to do whatever he thought right and fit to promote the glory of God and the good of the people. The date that was on the letter was 1155, consequently it was twenty years old. During the twenty years nobody ever heard of that letter except Henry, who had it in his pocket, and an old man called John of Salisbury, that wrote how he went to Rome and procured the letter in a huggermugger way from the Pope. Now, I solemnly and fearlessly assert that the letter was a forgery, and that Pope Adrian never issued any such document. This letter or brief comes down to us on the authority of John of Salisbury, who tells us in a

work of his called "Metalogicus," that being in Rome in 1155, he obtained from Pope Adrian the investiture of Ireland for Henry II. This statement is made in the last chapter of the book. It has no bearing on the subject matter, or context of the work, and at first sight looks like a kind of after-thought, let in apropos of nothing. The "Metalogicus" must have been written about the year 1159, for the author tells us that he had just received the news of Adrian's death, which took place in that year. Moreover, he states that Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, was still living, and Theobald died in 1161. If, then, the assertion in question was in the Metalogicus of John of Salisbury, it must have seen the light in 1159 or 1160. But all historians acknowledge without a shadow of doubt that Adrian's letter was never published nor heard of until 1174 or 1175, therefore, I conclude that it is a forged document, let into a subsequent edition of the Metalogicus when John of Salisbury was dead and gone.

Moreover, the brief of Adrian, as we find in the ancient manuscripts, was dated from Rome, but Pope Adrian was not in Rome at all during that time. Immediately after his consecration he had to fly from Rome, on account of popular commotions excited and led by the celebrated Arnold of Brescia; and John of Salisbury himself attests that he found the Pope at Benevento, where he stayed with him for three months. How comes it, therefore, that Adrian's brief should date from Rome when the Pope was not there at all?