general histories of England?” Certainly; but what is the point — wiiat is the cause of astonish- ment ? I have pointed out that the Irish are in a worse position than the English in respect to general histories. This is an “undoubted” fact. How is it affected by the other undoubted “fact” that lluines, Lingards, Burtons, and Greens do not jostle each other in tlio Strand or Prince’s-street ? Mr. O’Leary finds M‘Geoghegan “rather heavy and wearisome.” I am afraid Mr. O’Leary likes his history as children like their physic, with the sugar on; though, per- haps, 1 leave myself open to the retort that I like it without any sugar at all. Perhaps I do. 1 like facts clearly, dispassionately, stated. In the first rank I place the “faculty of re- search:” in the second or the first, “an inherent love of justice;” and in the last, “style.” Nay, if I can get the “ faculty of research” and the “ love of justice” 1 am prepared to dispense with “styje,” so far as it is supposed to include the picturesque. In this respect, 1 stand “ naked and not ashamed.” And 1 have no hesitation in saying that it would Ijo an improvement to many “ Irish” books if they had more body and less clothes. We do not want the facts of history to be illuminated by pyrotechnic literary dis- plays. We want them to be set forth in a clear and even mild light, which will not dazzle the student, and which will give no false effects.
M'Geoghegan has, upon the whole, fairly stood the test of time. Why does Mr. O’Leary name Taylor's “ Civil Wars of Ireland,” “ somewhat queer ly so called” ? It was “ somew'hat queer” to call this print the “ Civil Wars of Ireland,” but nothing like so queer as to call it by its present title, a “ History of Ireland.” This production first appeared in “ Constable’s Miscellany” under the title Mr. O’Leary gives it. But it was subsequently re-published under the more ambitious title of “ history”? But whether in “ Constable’s Miscellany” or out of it, Taylor's book is about as unreliable a “ history” of Ireland as Inis ever been written. He was a man, judging by his his- tory, “ who never consulted nor eared to consult an original authority.” Let me give an instance of his way of writing history. Eeferring to the battle of the Boyne, he says that William (after the battle) viewed the Enniskilleneis “with contempt, not un- mingied with hatred.” He also says that whon the news of Walker’s death re:ich<‘d the Englisli King, he brutally said (I do n(»t remember the exact words, but they were t.o the effect) “What business had he there ?” Now, both these statements may be true, but Mr. Taylor gives not a scrap of autliority for thorn. Not a single footnote, not a single reference to any book or paper of any kird whatever. I do not mean to say that a popu- lar historian ought to give footnotes or refer- ences for every statement. But he certainly oughtfor every statement likely to be disputed ; and Mr. Taylor’s .statement about William III. and the Eimiskilleners and Walker will not pass witi out challenge.
Again, Mr. Taylor says that the Enniskill- ners “ galloped from the field;” bnt he does not give one scrap of authority for this state- ment either. Suppose Mr. Johnston, M B, asks for the proof of this grave imputation on the courage of his political ancestors, where will Mr. Taylor be ? “ Who will hold the stakes?” said the Yorkshire man, who had suddenly fallen into the company of a number of “ swell mobsmen” at the Derby. “ Oh, the Captain will hold the stakes,” said one of his new flash companions, pointing to the most distinguished gentleman of the group. “ Ay,” said the Yorkshire man, “ but who will hold the Captain?” Who will guarantee Mr. Taylor? If a man wants to write popular history, let him confine himself to setting forth unquestionable facts in popu- lar language. But if he makes controvertible assertions, then let him mass his authoritie.s on the instant.
I agree with Mr. O’Leary about Sir Pope Hennessey’s book, and thank him for remind- ing me of it. I do not think I have spoken “too highly’’ of M‘Geeand Mitchel. I have only said “ M'Gee’s History is eminently readable,” and that Mitchel’s is “ brilliant,” and as “ admirable a specimen of pure and vigorous Saxon -English as may be found in the lan- guage.’’ I think this is true. I left out the “ JailJournal” and “ The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps)” for “ariihmetical”reasons, as Mr. O’Leary suggests. I had to make a selection of the three, and I considered the “ History” the most suitalile for ray pai3er. Mr. O’Leary is quite right in mentioning Plunket’s and Curran’s Speeches, but I deliberately omitted O'Connell’s, because we have no edition of them worthy of the man. O’Connell’s speeches have yet to be carefully collected and edited, as a
