the year 1669 he was consecrated Archbishop of Armagh and came over to take charge of this Island of which he had become Primate. He governed the Church committed to his care with singular edification to persons of all religious persuasions and without any molestation from the Government until the time of Oates's infamous plot; the seeds of which being brought over to this country by a knot of infamous villians, partly through malice, and partly for want of bread they resolved upon the destruction of the primate. by giving information against him as the abetter of a pretended invasion. He was accordingly seized upon; and brought to trial, no witnesses appearing he could not be convicted, yet he was not acqnitted as the law required, but was still detained.This was a stratagem of his enemies who were intent upon his destruction and resolved to effect it in a more complete way. For ireland not being the place they could work their ends in, it was thought advisable to send him over for trial to England, orders were given accordingly, and at the distance of eighteen months from his first committal he was obliged to appear at the bar of the Kings Bench at Westminister. where he was tried on the 8th of June-1681.

The witness having finished their depositions which were very home and positive as to au intended invasion, the Archbishop having liberty to speak, offered the following, considerations as, to the method of his prosecution and the motives of his prosecutors viz, 1st. That the moving of his cause to be tried in England was a visible* contrivance of his enemies for the purpose of having him sacrificed. 2nd, That the witnesses who appeared' against him were known in Ireland to be men of base character and proffligate behaviour, and hence his trial was' not had in that conntry where no credit would be given to them-3d, That his trial in England exposed him either to attempt almost possibilities, or to submit to condemnation without defence. That he could not bring over the persons necessary to confront the witnesses without a great expence which he could not bear. That some of his witnesses were poor and some detained by contrary wind and others purposely imprisoned in Irelandi lest he should have the benefit of their testimony. That

he

He was allowed but five weeks to prepare for his trial and to bring over his witnesses, and although some of them were as far advanced as Coventry yet they would be of no service to him as the Court would not consent to defer the trial. And what was still a greater hardship he assured the court that the principal witnesses against him were villians upon record in Ireland-But he had neither opportunity nor liberty to obtain copies of the record and of their sentences from the Counties in which they had been convicted.

These allegations however reasonable in themselves were explained away as insignificant, and were over ruled by the Court, so that the trial went on chiefly upon the evidence of Florence Wyeer, Henry O'Neil and Neil O'Neil laymen Edmund Murphy and John Macleigh, Parish Priests; Hugh Duffy and John Moyer, Fraciscan Friars. The main point of their testimony went to shew that his grace had collected money throughout the kingdom, in order to encourage and carry on a French invasion, to which his grace replied, that his circumstances and conduct were so well known in Irelandas to make the story altogether improbable, yet he could not say how far positive swearing may go with an English Jury, who were not acquaintéd with either the persons, facts, or circumstances, necessary to be known for the purpose, of being able to form a correct judgment upon the case.-As to himself it was very well known what incapacities he laboured under, he lived in a poor thatched house, and his income never exceeded sixty pounds a year; nor was it likely that one who could not afford to keep one servant could raise an army of seventy thousand men. He owned that he had issued out orders for the collection of money in his district, but it was a customary contribution upon agreement, whereby certain families were to pay a certain qnota towards maintaining their Parish Priests, out of which the Priests were to allow a proportion for the support of the Bishop, and that proportion seldom exceeded twenty pounds a year. Now said the Primate, the use which these persons make of this part of our system, is to represent this money as collected for the purpose of carrying on an invasion. His grace also hoped the court would consider the motives which induced those wretches to bring

this charge against him, some of them were strolling persons without character or reputation, whom he never saw or heard of before, and consequently persons very unlikely to be entrusted by him with a secret of that nature, others were scandalous Priests, whose irregular and undisciplined lives, he had borne with for upwards of seven years, and becase he had lately threatened them with suspension and excommunication, they had been heard frequently to vow revenge, and to say they would have his life. Others were mendicant Friars whose misconduct and loose lives had made them unworthy objects of other peoples charities, upon which account he had forbidden them to run about aud beg within his district. Lastly as to his own character, he appealed to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Earl of Essex and Lord Berkley, who he was confident would do him justice.-But Oates's plot being now upon its last legs, the exasperated party who were still in great power, and could influence the courts of Judicature, were resolved to sacrifice another life, not doubting but the death of an Archbishop would weigh much with the common people, and keep alive the belief. af a Popish plot.

Although those particulars must afford abundant proof of Primate Plunkett's innocence, yet it is not amiss to state, what several Protestant historians, particularly Burnett and Echard have published on his behalf. Burnet says, *The witnesses were lewd Irish Priests, brutal,

profligate men: yet the Earl of Shaftsbury cherished "them much.-Lord Essex told me this Plunkett was a "wise sober man, was for living quietly, and in due "submission to the government, without engaging in any "intrigue of State. Some of these Priests had been cen"sured by him for their lewdness, and they drew others in

to swear as they directed them." Mr, Echardsays,t" He, "had an attestation of his own good behaviour in Ireland, under the hands of the Earl of Essex, and the Lord Berkley, when they were Lords Lieutenants of that Kingdom, though the accusation looked very romantic, "not to say malicious; yet the witnesses were so perfect

History of his own times, P. 502. + Echards History of England, vol. 3. P. 631,

"

and positive in their Oaths, that the Jury found him guilty of High Treason, and sentence passed upon him accordingly. I have been assured by an unquestionable hand, that the Earl of Essex himself was so sensi"ble of this poor man's hardship, that he generously applied to the King for a pardon, and told his Majesty, "the witnesses must needs be perjured, because these "things sworn against him could not possibly be true. Upon which the King in a passion said, why did you not at"test this at his trial? It would have done him good "then. I dare not pardon any one; and so concluded "with the same kind of an answer, he had given to ano"ther person formerly, his blood be upon your head, and "not upon mine.”

46

THE MOST REVEREND ARCHBISHOP PLUNKET, was executed at Tyburn on the 1st of July, 1681.

Such is the character of this worthy prelate by those who were never known to shew any mercy to Catholics, if they had the least colour to misrepresent them.

Now, as for those that were Catholics, and had an opportunity of knowing his life and behaviour, their opinion is, that he was a prelate worthy of the primitive ages. He had been a credit to the Ecclesiastical state from the first moment that he entered into it, and many years usefal to the Church both by word and example, and learning. He was above the world in all the controversies of life, and behaved himself in the last scene, with resignation, modesty, and resolution. During his confinement every little action was a lesson to posterity. He was not permitted at first to converse with any one except the keeper of Newgate; but this was no mortification to a person entirely weaned from the world, and delighting in retirement. Three or four days in the week his food was generally only bread and water. Indeed after his condemnation several of his friends were permitted to visit him. He had also liberty to write and to receive letters which were generally read by some persons appointed for that purpose. His whole time was spent in prayer and religious conversation with those persons who were happy in receiving his last instructions.-His chief correspondent was Mr. Corker, a Benedictine Monk, who

Jay also under sentence of condemnation in Newgate om account of his character. This Gentleman assisted him both as to spirituals and temporals, and procured cousiderable charities towards maintaining him during his confinement. The night before his execution, he rested very composedly from about eleven until four in the morning, when he arose without any visible concern for his approaching fate. 'Tis observed in one of the acts of his life, that on the morning before he suffered, he made Mr. Corker a present of his body to dispose of it as he should think proper, and heing desired afterwards to take a glass of sack, he would not taste it until he had asked leave of Mr. Corker, who was now become master of his earthly habitation, which piece of seeming scrupulosity arose from the high idea he had of humility and obedience. Mr. Corker willingly accepted of this gift, and, when times permitted, disposed of it in a proper manner. The quarters of his body were first deposited in St. Giles's Churchyard, under the north wall near the five Jesuits. "In: "the said place Plunkets quarters continued till the crop "ear'd plot broke out in 1683, and then they were taken "up and conveyed beyond sea to the monastery of Benedictins, (of which order he was a brother) at Lambspring in Germany."-The letters which passed between him and Mr. Corker, are full of the highest ideas. of the divine goodness, and of brotherly charity towards the wretches who were the cause of his death.

FIFTH LETTER

From certain Jews to Mr. Voltaire in refutation of his objections against the Old Testament.

SIR,

After having unavailingly opposed to the common belief of Jews and Christians with regard to the authenticity of the Pentateuch, your imaginary impossibility of Moses being the writer; you pass from the general and, extrinsic objection to special difficulties which you appre hend you have discovered in the very body of the work itself. Yon fasten upon some of the facts related in it, and treading in the steps of some others of your writers, you represent them as false, inpossible and absurd.