represented by a harp) to enter the sacred edifice. The figure of Erin stood beside him, presenting him with two wreaths, one of science and the other of victory, with one legend over his head, “Utrâque dignus,” and another round the edge of the medal, “ Diram qui contadit hydram." On the reverse was the following inscription:"To the Reverend A. O'Leary, who taught Irishmen that, however they may be divided in speculative points of religion, Christian charity and generous friendship should be borne by all to all, the Cork Amicable Society presented this medal, A.D. 1784."*

Father O'Leary's pen, scarcely ever inactive, was again called into play in the year 1786, when he published a pamphlet entitled a "Review of the Important Controversy between Doctor Carroll and the Rev. Messrs. Wharton and Hawkins; including a Defence of the Conduct of Pope Clement XIV. (Ganganelli) in suppressing a late Religious Order. By the Rev. Arthur O'Leary." The Rev. Messrs. Wharton and Hawkins were two English Roman Catholic priests, who had apostatized from their Church, and joined that of England. One had incurred the displeasure of his superiors, either by disobedience or misconduct; the other had evinced a disregard for the vow of celibacy incompatible with the public profession of the priesthood. Soon after their defection from the Church, probably to justify their change of religion, they published a pamphlet, in which they launched forth, with great severity, against the doctrines and practices of the Church they had abandoned, and treated the public to tales of immorality dressed out to suit the taste of scandal, and attested strongly enough to bear a striking resemblance to the truth. A reply to their Apology was soon published,

* The medal here mentioned is in the possession of Mr. Charles Mathew, of Lehenagh, near Cork, brother to the celebrated Father Mathew.

bearing the signature of a distinguished Jesuit, the Rev. Dr. Carroll, subsequently the first Catholic bishop of America.* A friend of O'Leary's sent him a copy of the controversy, and expressed a desire to have his opinion upon it. Thereupon, the energetic friar produced his "Review," which was published in London, displaying all the characteristics of style and erudition for which his writings had now become famous, and enjoying that popularity to which they were so justly entitled.

In the course of the controversy, allusions had been made on both sides to one of the most remarkable events of that day, the expulsion of the Jesuits from Rome, and the suppression of that order by Pope Clement XIV., the reigning pontiff. Dr. Carroll was a Jesuit, and was naturally warm on the indignity to which his order had been subjected. In his vindication, however, he proceeded beyond the bounds of moderation, and employed language, in reference to the pope, which could only be excused by the over-zeal in defence of his party, which prompted it. The epithets "artful" and "designing" were rather too strong to be applied to one of the mildest and saintliest pontiffs that ever filled the Chair of Peter. Clement was a Franciscan; so was O'Leary. The friar came to the rescue of the prince of friars-how, indeed, could he be silent when the suppression of the Jesuits was attributed to "sinister views" on the part of the pontiff, although the charge came from a brother priest? Truth's claims were paramount. O'Leary refuted the charge, and his refutation evoked the gratitude of an impartial and discerning public.

The true causes of the suppression of that great religious order are briefly stated by him: "The dissolution

* See Mr. Maguire's Irish in America, page 355, for an interesting account of Dr. Carroll,

of the Jesuits," he says, " was owing to their influence, which rendered them objects of envy to artful ministers of State, whose ambitious projects they often controlled, as directors of monarchs, and members of their spiritual councils. It was owing to the expectation of immense wealth, with which kings themselves were flattered, by the abolition of the order. Again, contrary to the ordinary course of things, what was most likely to give permanency to the order, was the very cause of the downfall of the Jesuits, viz., their great credit, power, and authority. They have literally verified the remark of Tacitus, Sinistra erga eminentes interpretatio, nec minus periculum ex magná famá quam ex malá.”

The order of the Jesuits was restored by Pope Pius VII., and now has spread its branches all over Europe, while its missionaries penetrate into every discovered region of the globe. The greatness and influence to which they owed their fall, are now recognized, by every candid observer, as the strongest claims to respect and admiration. What they ever have been, they are to-day, the most indefatigable pioneers of religion, the ablest promoters and brightest ornaments of literature, sacred and profane, all over the world; fitted for the highest, and ready to partake in the humblest duties of mankind—content if, by the oblation of their very lives, they help in giving "glory to God, and peace on earth to men of good will."

In the "Review" to which we have called attention, O'Leary paints with striking fidelity the course frequently pursued by apostate priests in attempting to justify their secession from the Church. "In the beginning of their apologies or justifications, they affect the serious solemnity of a tragic writer, by painting in sable colors the miseries that attend our subjection to authority-the misfortunes of the noble soul shackled in the fetters of obedience to pastors, 'like a fair

Zenobia in the chains of a tyrant.' Our uncharitableness is arraigned, in excluding from eternal bliss and consigning to perdition Christians of every description, except ourselves. These are serious themes, and of so affecting a nature as to enable a poet of moderate genius to work up a tolerable religious tragedy, were it now the custom as in the fourteenth century to exhibit such pieces on the stage, if, at the unravelling of the plot, they had not effects of comedy in exciting the laughter of the audience, when they come to know that all this solemn bustle is about-a wife."

The celebrated John Howard, the philanthropist, was wont to boast of his friendship with O'Leary. That great and good man, in his peregrinations on behalf of suffering humanity, came to Cork, where it gave him pleasure to find in existence a society "for the relief and discharge from prison of persons confined for small debts." Of this association, which had been founded by Henry Sheares, Esq., the father of the unhappy brothers who fell victims to their ill-judged patriotic attempts in 1798, Father O'Leary was a conspicuous and most active member. He was introduced to Howard by their common friend, Archdeacon Austin; and it is easy to conceive that two men of views so congenial on the great questions involving the happiness of the human race, became the greatest friends, and emulated each other in mutual admiration and esteem.

CHAPTER VII.

Account of the Whiteboys-Father O'Leary's Address to themPamphlet of "Theophilus "Who "Theophilus" was-Pamphlet of Dr. Woodward, Protestant Bishop of Cloyne-O'Leary's Celebrated Reply to "Theophilus " and the Bishop-Extracts therefromOpinions of the Public on the Controversy-Eulogies on O'Leary by Moore, Hay (Irish Rebellion), Lord Kenmare, Curran, Woodward himself—Captain Rock's Description of Father O'Leary— The Bishop of Cloyne's Altered Views.

THE relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland, as recognized by law, has been for more than one hundred years the fruitful source of popular discontent, and the occasion of frequent outbreaks amongst the peasantry of a violent and vindictive character. The first of these tumultuous risings took place about the year 1760, and the rioters received the name of Whiteboys, because they wore white shirts over their clothes while engaged in their lawless proceedings. Though nothing could justify, yet there was much to palliate those unhappy manifestations of hatred and revenge. The wretched peasants, goaded into fury by a legalized persecution, of which the agents were numerous and unsparing, should have lost the last vestige of human feeling; the very instinct of the crushed worm should have been extinguished in their souls, if they did not turn upon the iron heel of oppression by which they were trampled. Like the timid hare exposed to the multiform dangers of greyhound, gin, gun, club, weasel, and eagle, the Irish peasant no sooner escaped the pursuit of the landlord, than he had to contend with the still more formidable middleman who had scarcely bled him beyond revival, when his entrails were plucked out by the vulture-beak of the tithe-proctor.