the necessity and means of doing historical justice what did not then occur to me, that in the year 1792 the Irish Catholicks framed and took a public test, relinquishing all such idle claims and imaginary pretensions. The test also extended to other points, or charges, which were urged against them; it was acceded to and signed by all the respecta ble Catholicks in the kingdom, whose names affixed to their declaration on these points, were published in all the papers. The measure at that time seemed to give very general satisfaction; and it either satisfied or silenced their enemies. As I relate this from memory, and may be wrong, I do not desire you to give ample credit to this circumstance, until I can establish it by printed documents. In the historian it is perfectly fair and right to mention, that the charge of resumption was urged openly by one party; but then it will be but candid to mention also, that the charge was denied or repelled by the other in the most ample and satisfactory manner they conld. It will then rest with the impartial reader to say, whether he has more faith in the charge, than in the refutation. I have applied to a friend in Dublin to procure me some authentick information on points, which it may be of consequence to have cleared up for you. I have been promised a copy of the dissertations. If you have any doubts on particular questions, perhaps I may be able to solve the one, or to answer the other. My means of serving you are very limited indeed, which I canuot sufficiently regret. I congratulate my country on this Work having fallen into your hands, whom abilities and candour equally qualify for the uudertaking. Your history will not be like that of Sir Richard Musgrave— recentibus odiis composita. You know with Livy, that an historian is or onght to be---qui nil falsi dicere audeat, nil veri dicere non audeat. 1 am with great esteem, Dear Sir, your very assured humble Servant, HUGH M'DERMOTT. to the Irish nation, in which I still consider him as sympathizing with me, with the same ardor of a true Irishman, which he ever manifested to me both by word and writing. I returned to London in the month of November 1801, and Dr. M'Dermott, did, as he had kindly undertaken, write to you in my favor, to prepare me an introduction, whenever I should wish to have personal communication with you. Dermott's the Histori Before I left Dublin, Dr. M'Dermott had the Doctor M kindness to read over what manuscript I had prepared. opinion of To his knowledge, experience and judgment I cal Review paid great deference upon matters of Irish history. On the eve of my intended departure from Dublin, he returned me the manuscript, with a letter containing the following lines. "If, contrary to my "wish, I should be disappointed in seeing you again, "be kind enough to let me know your address in "London. At present I can only say, that I have "read your sheets with encreasing pleasure every '' page, and I can safely assert, that so candid and "liberal a production relative to Irish history never "issued from the pen of an Englishman.*" That letter also contained a postcript to the following effect. "I received this day a letter from my friend "Dr. D * The reader is assured, that the originals of all the letters quoted are in the possession of the author: and he conceives, that he holds them as evidence, on behalf of the Irish nation, whose history he has written, and which they tend to verify. Dr. O'Co nor's suppressed volume of "Dr. O'Conor, who is still at Oxford, but goes to "Stowe very shortly. He says, the Grenville party "all disapprove of the peace: that it is doubtful, "whether Pitt will support it, and that Mr. Adding"ton will have to encounter a formidable opposi❝tion." During my sejour in Dublin, Dr. M'Dermott gave me a printed volume in octavo, which had no title, memoirs of and which he told me had never been published, or the O'Con or family. had been suppressed by you at the suggestion, or by the desire, or through the influence of your liberal patron the Marquis of Buckingham. The Work was intended to comprize the Memoirs of the O'Conor family, and the second volume though prepared for press, was kept back. The first volume is a loose and ill digested compilation of several valuable and interesting documents and occurrences in Irish history, particularly concerning your own ancestors, who were real friends to their country. It contains no matter, which ought not be published and circulated as widely as possible, for the information and credit of your countrymen. But Alethephobia ever has been been,and ever will be the unvarying symp tom of false friendship to Ireland.* When after the lecture *The reader is requested, not to suppose, that my Reverend and most learned correspondent gave rise exclusively to this observation. Before I was aware of the necessity of bringing his most learned Reverence before the public, I had occasion in 1804 to publish a postliminious preface to my Historical lecture of that volume, I reflected, that you the author the D 2 Review, in which (p. 69 of the Dublin Edt.) I said. “If "Ireland after the Union be not emancipated, fitting it is, "that the Irish should know the men and the measures, that "keep them out of this long sighed for land of promise." On which text I remarked in a note: "The irritation and "virulence of the British Critic and other anonymous writers, "who are stimulated and hired to disgorge their venom at the "Historical Review, shew, and it has become the author's "duty, to unfold the conspiracy formed not merely against "Catholic Emancipation, but against the publication of the truth of Irish history." Within fewer than six months from the publication of that postliminious preface Dr. O'Conor had probably heard his liberal Mæcenas complain, as he often has, of the author of the Historical Review, who could not have given such a distorted misrepresentation of the Buckingham administration, unless it had been dictated to him by Mr. Grattan. The author had no communication direct or indirect with that great man, whilst he was writing it. But some time after its publication, when he had read it, he honoured the author with a letter containing the following testimony of his approbation in unison with that of Dr. M'Dermott, which is presumed to be contrasted against the judgment of the Reverend Charles O'Conor D.D. upon the same work. "You are one "of the very few Irish historians, who have ventured to deal "in the commodity called truth. You have done so like a 66 man, with vigor and ability, against the tide of power and prejudice. You must look to the reward of merit, i. e. the censure of those, whose censure is panegyric. Some of "those, who have attempted to write the history of Ireland are men, who sold themselves and the country. 66 tory is their apology, not the recitation of facts. (6 bigots, and they are slaves, bought and sold. Their his They are Your history "carries with it a characteristical stamp, that it was written "by a freeman." ! of it had suppressed it, that you had quitted the ob- the His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales voted in the minority, when by this back stairs manoeuvre the King's ministers were outvoted, and Mr. Fox's East India Bill was thrown out of the Lords: and the empire thenceforth plunged into the unfathomable disasters of Mr. Pitt's system. His R. Highness has often declared, that he never gave a vote, which he thought, at the time of giving it, more consonant with the will of his Royal Father. Surely, if your liberal patron did by any means during that debate know the real will and wishes of his Sovereign, it would have been but decent in him, to communicate them to his Royal Highness, to prevent a difference of opiniou between the Sovereign and the Heir Apparent, or allow the latter to retire, if he chose, without divid ing even against this equivocal and un-constitutional com unication of his Royal Father's wishes or feelings. |