common to the Gaelic as well as to the Irish language. Its use is now almost confined solely to theology, and denotes that ransom which the Saviour paid to rescue mankind from spiritual bondage. The practice to which it refers was common at one period to the eastern nations: and it is to this that reference is made in the book of Job, where it is said, "Skin for skin; yea, "all that a man hath will he give for his life." In Ireland, the eric was admitted as a compensation for every crime; the only thing left to the decision of the judge, was the extent of this fine. If the offender could not be found, the clan or family to which he belonged were obliged to give the required satisfaction to the aggrieved party; and this ransom was divided between them and their chieftain.*

The practice of plundering and living on booty prevails among all rude nations: it is not thought dishonourable to carry off the cattle of any neighbouring hostile tribe. The people are early accustomed to pilfer; they depend greatly for their sustenance on spoil: a habit that is common to all is thought disgraceful by none; and the united members of the clan carry on their little plans of depredation with as much ease and

man give in exchange for his soul? Ciod a bheir duine mar eric arson anma?

self-complacency, as more polished nations burn and destroy the property of one another. Hence it is, that the Highlander who had the virtue to refuse a reward of thirty thousand pounds for the Pretender, did not conceive the less of his character for stealing a cow; and this crime, which among us is punished by death, he would consider, if, indeed, it was associated in his mind with any guilt, as expiable by an inconsiderable compensation. It was in circumstances similar to those in which this Highlander was placed that the practice of giving an eric had its origin; and perhaps it was the only mode that the turbulence of the times rendered practicable of forcing offenders to afford public satisfaction.

III. We have seen that the Brehon law was first abolished in Ireland, and the English established under the reign of Elizabeth. To establish a law, however, in a conquered country, or even a code of laws, and to make the people conform, so as to derive the full advantage of such an institution, are two very different things. And, accordingly, we find that many of the people of this country continued for ages after this period, to receive no advantage from the laws of that government under whose protection they had been admitted.

The object of law is to prevent the recurrence of evils which have already existed; but that it may answer this end, it must be supported by

the opinions and convictions of the people. If, for example, they are so ignorant as to discover no guilt in that deed on which it denounces punishment; or, if generally they have no virtue to avoid its commission, then, it is certain, that the design of the law, will in a great degree be counteracted. Now, it happened, that in the reign of Elizabeth, and in that of her successor, the people were not only remarkably ignorant, but from some recent circumstances full of prejudice against English government. The penal statutes had now been enacted; and though very gently executed, were sufficient to excite the antipathy of a people who had only begun to acknowledge the authority of a foreign power. Hosts of ecclesiastics from France and Spain arrived soon after this in Ireland, and confirmed this hostility, while they successfully attempted to render odious every thing associated with heresy. But above all, the circumstances in which the people were placed; ignorant and turbulent, unaccustomed to yield obedience to any superior except their chieftain, rendered the introduction of any new laws hazardous, in many instances useless. Besides, by observing these laws, they were tacitly reminded, as they conceived, of their subjugation to a power, their aversion to which they often openly avowed. This prejudice has had considerable influence in retarding the progress of civilization.

On this head there is one circumstance which ought not to be omitted, since it is particularly noticed by the best of the Irish historians: I allude to the notorious corruption of the judges at the time to which I refer. "In the provinces "which had but just now professed to accept "the English polity, the execution of the laws "was rendered detestable and intolerable by the Queen's officers. Sheriffs purchased their

66

66

places; acted, as in Connaught, with inso"lence and oppression; spoiled the old inha"bitants, and obliged them to recur to their na"tive chieftains for protection." Leland mentions the case of a Macmahon, who was accused of raising rents in a neighbouring district by force of arms, which according to the law of England, was declared to be high treason. This unhappy chieftain for an offence committed before the law which declared it capital had been established in his country, was tried, condemned by a jury said to be formed of private soldiers, and executed in two days; to the utter consternation of his countrymen. His estate was distributed to Sir Sidney Bagnal and other adventurers. The condemnation of their chieftain confirmed the Irish in their aversion to English polity, which they considered as a system of hateful tyranny and cruelty.*

* Leland's History of Ireland.

M

These nefarious practices were in a great degree discontinued under the powerful administration of Strafford, who with all his bad qualities, was certainly a benefactor to Ireland. But at his death, the commencement of a civil war, which was waged with implacable fury, which carried destruction through every part of the island, and which lasted till the reign of William, put a stop to the progress of regular government, and involved the natives in all the barbarity and calamities of former ages. This war was at once the cause and effect of prejudices and grievances which estranged the people from the English polity. Nor was that policy by which the servants of the crown regulated their conduct at all calculated to remove the former or to redress the latter. Their principle was to divide the people into two parties, that of loyal and affectionate subjects, containing only the late adventurers; and that of the disaffected and dangerous, including all the rest of the inhabi tants. The people thus insulted were spirited and proud; and there was an infatuated folly, as well as a barbarous iniquity, in provoking them yet farther by injustice and oppression. The northern plantation, however justified, and well devised, was an object necessarily offensive to the pride and prejudices of the old Irish; and those among them who submitted and accepted