7 So Reviews of Books been the only benefactor of Ireland ; and that the Papacy and the Irish have been alone responsible for the sufferings of the country. His treat- ment is everywhere inadequate, particularly in the first volume, which covers a period of 184 years, while the second is devoted to but 16. There is nothing that can be regarded as an account of Ireland under Charles I., or of the Cromwellian conquest, or of the penal laws, which are discussed interminably without once being described. Even where a topic is fully treated, there is an almost complete absence of facts favorable to any but the author's view. He condemns the Irish for refus- ing to take the oath of allegiance in 1606, when this would have freed them from the consequences of the penal laws, but does not say that the penalties of the recusancy laws would not thus have been escaped ; he holds the Catholics accountable for the later penal laws because they de- clined in 1666 to sign a remonstrance, but he omits to mention that the Duke of Ormond stated that this remonstrance was purposely so drawn as to make it impossible for many Catholics to sign, though Mr. Osmund Airy long ago called his attention to this fact. He quotes Justice Keat- ing's letter to James in behalf of English possessors of Irish land as evi- dence of the pernicious character of the Irish Act of Repeal in 1689, but fails to state that the letter was written before the bill was passed and while it was still uncertain what it would contain. These instances are examples of what is common throughout. The distortion of evidence is equally prevalent, especially in the author's inveterate habit of drawing unjustifiable inferences from the statements of all who are on the other side of the question. Even more irritating are his sweeping generalizations: "There is no reason to doubt that if the Irish branch of the great Celtic family had been left to itself, it would gladly have accepted incorporation with the English people;" "Perfect toleration and perfect equality existed in Ireland before the great rebellion of 1641;" "The Roman Catholics . . . were not actuated by any racial antipathies to the English or to the Anglo-Irish. Such a feeling never existed." This regrettable ten- dency to say more than the evidence will support is accompanied by an acrimonious temper : Mr. Lecky's assertions reveal " infinite folly, pre- judice and ignorance;" Macaulay displays "gross partiality" and "narrow bigotry;" Burke's conduct in 1785 was "extremely dis- honest;" Flood was "thoroughly unscrupulous; George Ponsonby "insincerity personified;" the leaders of the United Irishmen "mur- derous mountebanks ;" the Whig Club a "mischievous and contemptible body;" Grattan uttered " crazy and pitiful nonsense," " seditious and inflammatory rant," and was inspired by "the mad rage of disappoint- ment, measureless vanity, and profound ignorance of the constitution and laws of Ireland;" while the last Irish Parliament was "the most worth- less and incompetent assembly that ever misgoverned a country." Such unqualified condemnation refutes itself. The book seems to have been written hastily and the author's ma- terials are poorly digested, for the same statements and the narration of
