929.2 
 
 Oc 4ocVo 
 
1 
 
REVIEW 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. O’ CONOR’S WORK, 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 “ MEMOIR OF A CONTROVERSY 
 
 RESPECTING THE 
 
 NAME BORNE BY THE O’CONNORS OF BALLINTUBBER.” 
 
 A MEMBER OF THE BELANAOARE FAMILY. 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 
 JAMES DUFFY, 7, WELLINGTON- QUAY. 
 1859. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 3, line 24, for statements, read statement. 
 
 Page 5, line 31, for possible, read probable. 
 
 Page 7, line 15, omit comma after O’Connor. 
 
 Page 8, line 22, insert full stop after Corrasduna, and omit following inverted commas. 
 Page 12, line 6, for those, read one. 
 
 Page 15, line 7, omit inverted commas ; paragraph to end with “ pamphlet”. 
 
 Page 22, line 17 ,/or a priore, read a priori. 
 
 ,, line 23, for as, read us. 
 
 Page 23, line 29, for works, read words. 
 
 Page 30, line 20, for authography, read orthography. 
 
 Page 32, line 18, for argument, read arguments. 
 
 Page 42, line 18, read Denis, Bridget, and Anne. 
 
 Page 45, line 22, for broke, read broken. 
 
 „ line 25, for where, read were. 
 
 Page 46, line 32, for it, read Clonalis. 
 
 Page 48, line 2, for bide, read bides. 
 
 Page 50, line 5, for youngest, read younger. 
 
303 - 2 - 
 
 Dc4doYs 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Sr 
 
 When we remember the circumstances under which Mr. 
 Roderick O’Cohor’s views on the O’Conor family first 
 appeared, and the pains he has since taken to write them, 
 if not into credit at least into notoriety, we do not conceive 
 any apology to be due to the public, when we propose briefly 
 to examine statements and arguments so pertinaciously 
 brought before its notice. It is true the interests which 
 Mr. O'Conor assails, and those he aims at establishing, are 
 of a private nature, and not very fitly made the subject of 
 public altercation; and we freely concede that the “otium 
 cum dignitate” of Leeson-street might be devoted to better 
 purposes. 
 
 But when Mr. O’Conor’s prudence, if he ever possessed 
 any, abandoned him ; when the higher attributes of truth 
 |a nd candour followed in its wake, leaving him not the 
 ^fanatic of a foolish belief, but the determined framer of an 
 ^intentional deceit, the public he sought to deceive, and the 
 "^individuals he sought to injure, have a common interest in 
 £ administering to him the chastisement of an exposure. 
 ,^The care of the individual is to some extent the care of 
 v^the community, and what concerns the one cannot fail in 
 Ultimately becoming the concern of the other. Public law 
 ^ is intended for the protection of private rights, and public 
 S opinion ought ever be supplemental to it. The concealed 
 thief who lies in wait to spoil us of our material property 
 
1Y 
 
 awakens our indignation, and it is the interest of all to see 
 him duly punished. But there is another class of property 
 with whose protection public opinion is more especially 
 charged ; nor is it the less valuable and estimable from its 
 being necessarily left more exposed to the artifices of dis- 
 honesty. So long as all continue to place a just value on 
 ancestral dignities, it is the interest of all to see that they 
 be not unwarrantably misrepresented and misappropriated ; 
 and this becomes more apparent through the consideration 
 that the preservation of ancestral dignities not rarely 
 includes the maintenance of other ancestral rights. From 
 the review which we contemplate will appear how sufficient 
 the grounds are on which we now impute to Mr. Roderick 
 O’Conor such unwarrantable misrepresentations, not unfre- 
 quently aggravated into the proportions of monstrous false- 
 hood. This is accompanied by a mass of absurdity, wdiich 
 would lead us to observe a contemptuous silence, were it not 
 that it might pass with some for a complicity with a deceit, 
 with others as an acquiescence in the statements which are 
 used for its support. 
 
 It will, however, be with us an object to keep within the 
 limits of the subject of our review; nor shall we embarrass 
 its examination by quoting the innumerable documents, 
 public and private, which might be brought in evidence 
 against it. We propose, as far as possible, to test our 
 authors arguments on their own merits; and to find the 
 worth of his statements through the evidence which they 
 themselves furnish. 
 
 We leave to the reader the task of passing judgment on 
 both in the light of the motives which gave them birth, and 
 the spirit in which they w r ere conducted. 
 
REVIEW OF MR. O’ CONOR’S WORK, 
 
 " MEMOIR OF A CONTROVERSY RESPECTING TIIE NAME 
 BORNE BY THE O’CONNOR’S OF BALL1NTUBBER.” 
 
 The commencement of this controversy, it may be remem- 
 bered, was occasioned by Mr. O’Cohor’s publishing three suc- 
 cessive letters on the O'Conor name and family in the Roscom- 
 mon Messenger. Subsequently, other letters appeared in the 
 same journal, and on the same subject; and about two years 
 later came forth the famous memoir now about to be reviewed. 
 
 This memoir, which appeared in the form of a pamphlet, 
 purports to be a compact edition of the above-named letters, 
 hitherto scattered over a series of newspapers, but contains, 
 in addition, copious notes and observations, emanating from 
 the pen of Mr. Roderick 0’Coiior, and all intended to 
 establish his view on the subject. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor did not, however, consider the publication 
 of this pamphlet sufficient protection to his newly-discovered 
 ancestral dignity. Within the last few months he has pro- 
 duced another “ notice” on the ancient O’Cohors of Ros- 
 common and Sligo, attached by way of appendix to an 
 abridged history of Ireland. As he is, therefore, resolved 
 to put himself before the public, whether his advances be 
 welcome or unwelcome, let us briefly examine what are his 
 claims, and how he supports them. The pamphlet before us 
 may very fairly be taken as the criterion by which to judge 
 the strength of these claims, inasmuch as it was got up 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 especially to support them, and nothing was left undone 
 which might give it publicity or lend it an apparent autho- 
 rity. How much it proves for Mr. O’Conor, and how 
 much reliance can be placed upon it, we may judge from the 
 following analysis. 
 
 The most striking features in Mr. O’Conor’s memoir, 
 which must become evident to every reader, and which, in 
 in fact, give it its character, are the easy confidence with 
 which assertions are made, and the false logic by which 
 conclusions are appended to them. Unsupported statements 
 are assumed as facts. Subsequent assertion is called con- 
 clusion from them, and everything is claimed as proved 
 where everything has been asserted. To discover this, or 
 to exemplify it, Mr. O’Conor’s two first letters furnish 
 abundant means of illustration. 
 
 After his first very long, explanatory, opening sentence, 
 in which he assigns, as the reason for his writing, the 
 extravagant “ assumption” of Messrs. Denis and Arthur 
 O’Conor, he commences his assertions. He states, that 
 Sir Hugh O’Connor lived at such a time, and was acknow- 
 ledged the head of the O’Connor family; that before his 
 time much doubt and uncertainty might be entertained with 
 respect to the genealogy of the O’Connors, but that since his 
 time there is no obscurity whatever. “ In fact, there is no 
 conflicting evidence ; the different branches of the family have 
 their respective genealogies, which they have preserved 
 with too much care to admit of any mystification on the 
 subject.” He next states, that Owen O’Connor had peculiar 
 means of gaining information on the family history; and 
 then gives the statement of Owen, after which he returns 
 to his own assertion, and states that Bryan O’Connor, 
 fourth son of Sir Hugh, had issue, and that his descendants 
 are still living. We have not, surely, yet come to any 
 
reasoning, nor has there been the slightest proof given 
 of any of these statements, except, indeed, whatever autho- 
 rity the ipse dixit of Owen O’Conor might bestow, even 
 of which the last statement respecting Bryan O’Conor is 
 deprived ; and yet Mr. O’Conor has the hardihood to 
 draw from all these gratuitous assertions the following 
 rather precipitate conclusion — that he has proved the family 
 of Bryan O’Connor to be still extant: “ I think I have 
 shown,” he says, “ that the three branches of the O’Connor 
 family, whose ancestors I find in that (Owen O'Conor’s) 
 genealogy, are still extant.” In this piece of reasoning we 
 can well realize the truth of the great Curran’s remark, 
 that “ error is in its nature flippant and compendious; it 
 leaps with airy and fastidious levity over proofs and argu- 
 ments, till it rests upon assertion, which it calls con- 
 clusion.” 
 
 The next letter begins with a reiteration of part of the 
 foregoing conclusion: “I have already shown,” Mr. O’Conor 
 begins, “ that the Clonalis family are descended from 
 Hugh Oge O’Connor, the second son of Sir Hugh.” How, 
 may we ask, has he shown it? What is the proof by which 
 he has shown it? It is that Owen O' Conor stated it; from 
 which, of course, we are left to infer that Owen O’Conor’s 
 having made a statements is, with Mr. O’Conor, sufficient 
 evidence of its being correct; an admission which, we trust, 
 the reader will keep in mind, as we may have occasion to 
 refer to it hereafter. 
 
 After this auspicious commencement, Mr. O’Conor branches 
 off into a discussion on the mode of spelling the name 
 “ O’Connor ;” and, apparently to his satisfaction, proves that 
 the spelling with the double n is the correct one. To 
 us, indeed, he seems to prove little more than that certain 
 members of the family, at a certain time, spelled the name 
 
4 
 
 in the way which he advocates. Such a conclusion, how- 
 ever, would not satisfy Mr. O’Conor ; he does not want to 
 confine himself to the strict results of his proof where he 
 can so readily enlarge them by assertion ; nor does he fear to 
 overreach his premises, inasmuch as whatever he asserts 
 becomes ipso facto clearly proved. To what he regards as 
 the assertions of others, he does not, indeed, extend a like 
 indulgence, and, consequently, he now calls upon his 
 “ illustrious friends” to show by what authority Owen 
 O’Oonor took upon himself the altering the name “ O’Con- 
 nor” throughout the entire of the pedigree. This pedigree, 
 he asserts, was framed by a shrewd lawyer, and with an 
 unfair intention. The latter of those statements he is obliged 
 to contradict in a note, while the former, that the pedigree 
 was framed by a shrewd lawyer, though equalty false and 
 unfounded, is permitted to hold its place. One sacrifice to 
 truth appeared sufficient at a time. 
 
 These statements, hazarded without any regard to their 
 correctness, afford us notable examples of that shameless 
 indifference, that presumptuous rashness of assertion, which 
 characterize the entire of his work. This disregard of truth, 
 however, cannot fail to betray itself, for although bold asser- 
 tion may for a moment succeed, yet, in the end, when carried 
 to lengths so violent, it inevitably leads to inconsistency. Nor 
 do Mr. O Conor’s writings disprove the wisdom of a remark 
 that has often been made ; on the contrary, we think few 
 so styled authors, could be found whose writings tend more 
 to establish it. Some there have been who, though incon- 
 sistent in their views, yet have cast a veil over their incon- 
 gruities, which it required at least a skilful hand to draw 
 aside ; but Mr. O’Conor’s contradictions and absurdities meet 
 each other face to face in undisguised deformity, not even 
 made to the likeness of truth or to the semblance of legiti- 
 
5 
 
 mate argument. To satisfy ourselves on this point, but a 
 very cursory view of his work is necessary, and the follow- 
 ing few, out of its many contradictory statements, will, we 
 think, sufficiently exemplify it. 
 
 In the preface to this eminently unsuccessful production, 
 we find it stated that Charles O’Connor framed pedigrees for 
 partial purposes, and that these pedigrees, afterwards “ man- 
 gled,” “garbled, and insidiously prepared,” formed the only 
 evidence by which Mr. Matthew O’Conor could prove his 
 own descent or calumniate that of his neighbours. In ano- 
 ther part of the work we are also informed that the only 
 evidence which could be brought forward by the O’Connors 
 of Belanagare, and consequently by Mr. M. O’Conor, to 
 support their descent, was the pedigree lodged by Owen 
 O’Connor, and to which he affixed his certificate. From 
 both of these statements it evidently follows that the pedigree 
 framed by Charles O’Conor for partial purposes, and garbled 
 and mutilated by Matthew O’Conor, was the identical pedi- 
 gree which Owen O’Conor certified to be a true and fair 
 pedigree, according to the best of his belief. Hence, Owen 
 O’Conor is accused of wilfully certifying to what was false. 
 For it must have been a wilful transgression, inasmuch as 
 Owen O’Conor, being the contemporary of the framer and 
 the brother of the preparer of this pedigree, and being him- 
 self intimately acquainted with the matters contained in it, 
 could not possibly have been deceived on the subject; nor 
 is this the only instance, in this memoir, in which the cha- 
 racter of Owen is represented in an unfavorable light. In 
 the third of his letters, Mr. R. O’Conor tells us, that the 
 evidence of Owen O’Connor, on Dominick O’Connor’s will, 
 cannot be received, since it is possible that he had a bias 
 towards assuming that the Belanagare family were the only 
 remains of the descendants of Sir Hugh O’Connor. 
 
6 
 
 Yet this Owen O’Conor, who thus wilfully certified a 
 perverted pedigree, and on whose testimony no reliance 
 could be placed, is the same whose ipse dixit was taken, 
 according to Mr. R. O’Conor, as positive proof in matters 
 already noticed; who was “incapable of such a meanness” 
 as changing the spelling of the family name with any unfair 
 intention, and whose “ high reputation” was such that his 
 certificate on his descent ought to be received before any 
 assertions to the contrary. 
 
 A reader uninformed on the details of the subject before 
 us, and unacquainted with Mr. O’Conor’s system of sac- 
 rificing to the want and view of the moment, could never 
 imagine that these two characters of Owen O’Conor were 
 given by the same writer, and in the same work. In fact, 
 so totally unlike are they, varying not only in their con- 
 clusions, but also in their integral parts, that they appear the 
 views, not only of different, but even of antagonistic authors. 
 
 Yet we have not at all overdrawn the picture ; both these 
 characters as exhibited by us will be recognized by an 
 attentive reader in Mr. O’Conor’s book ; we have neither 
 magnified the one nor diminished the other, preserving in 
 both, as far as possible, Mr. O’Coiiors words. 
 
 The next instance which we shall notice, is that with re- 
 spect to the character of the late Matthew O’Conor of 
 Mount Druid. This gentleman, we are told, was “ a shrewd, 
 calculating, and unscrupulous lawyer,” whose chief, if not 
 whose only end, in all his “ genealogical manoeuvres,” was 
 to prove his own descent from Sir Hugh O’Connor, and at 
 the same time to destroy the claims of all others to a like 
 honor. For accomplishing this, one of his chief weapons, 
 we are informed, was the title Don. “ The assumption of 
 a new name, and a fictitious title, suggesting to him his 
 highly disgraceful and mischievous manoeuvres.” Not with- 
 
7 
 
 standing which, Mr. Matthew O’Conor is the very person 
 brought forward as the first to expose “ the low origin and 
 absurd renewal” of this ancient title. The inconsistency 
 here is so self-evident, that it hardly requires any comment; 
 yet it is one into which Mr. O’Conor has fallen, not only 
 in this, his first pamphlet, but even to a more striking degree 
 in his last work. Indeed, wherever he wishes to show that 
 the title Don has been unfairly used and puffed up, Mr. 
 M. O’Conor is adduced as its puffer and its champion, and 
 whenever he wishes to throw on it ridicule and contempt, 
 the same Matthew O’Conor is proclaimed to be the first 
 who laid bare its worthlessness and its novelty ; yet Mr. 
 Matthew O’Conor, we are told, was “shrewd and cal- 
 culating.” 
 
 In Mr. O’Conor’s remarks on the will of Dominick 
 O’Connor, Don of Clonalis, we have also another instance 
 of inconsistency, in no way inferior to either of the pre- 
 ceding. In this will, Dominick O’Conor mentions Denis 
 O’Connor, of Willsbrook, as cousin; and Mr. R. O’Conor, 
 calculating, perhaps, that this admission may serve his 
 purpose, catches at it. It is paraded in several parts of the 
 pamphlet, and no opportunity is let pass of bringing it 
 into notice. In connexion with it, the will of Dominick is 
 praised beyond measure. It is asked, who dare say that 
 he did not know his relations, since he mentions the 
 Willsbrook family as cousins? The very idea of such 
 appears to Mr. O’Conor as preposterous, and the mention 
 of Denis, as cousin, in this will, is “ plain affirmative evi- 
 dence” against which, of course, the testimony of such a 
 man as Owen, of Belanagare, could not for a moment stand. 
 Will any one believe, that after all this, almost in the same 
 page, Mr. O’Conor himself has the presumption to tell us, 
 that Dominick O’Connor, Don of Clonalis, did not know 
 
8 
 
 his relations ! Yet this is an undeniable fact; for as the 
 same will mentioned Owen O’Conor as cousin, and as this 
 concession did not quite suit Mr. O’Conor’s views, we are 
 at once informed, in the very face of his former asser- 
 tion, “ that Dominick O’Connor did not know his rela- 
 tions ! ” 
 
 These few instances, so very similar in their natures, 
 sufficiently demonstrate how little reliance can be placed 
 on any statement made by Mr. Roderick O’Cohor. Many 
 other similar flagrant contradictions might be here enume- 
 rated by us, but as the principal amongst them will become 
 evident by pursuing our examination of the pamphlet, we 
 will at once resume that subject. 
 
 We have already seen what little reasoning, or attempt at 
 such, is displayed in the first two letters; it will next be our 
 duty to consider the third, and examine it in like manner. 
 It may be recollected that, at the close of the first letter, we 
 left Mr. O’Conor in a state of thought ; at the commence- 
 ment of this, the third, we find him still thinking. He 
 thinks he will now direct attention to the conclusive nature 
 of the evidence before adduced ; and first, with respect to the 
 genealogy of the O’Connors of Corrasduna: “ At length we 
 are come to the real subject of this pamphlet; our attention 
 is about being directed to the conclusive nature of the evi- 
 dence, which proves Mr. O’Conor’s own descent.” And 
 surely it is not too much to expect that now, at least, we 
 may get something more than assertion. How far our 
 expectations on this point are destined to be realized we 
 shall soon have an opportunity to decide. To enable us to 
 make this decision the more easily, we will place Mr. 
 O’Cohor’s proofs before the reader, almost entirely in his 
 own words. 
 
 “ First proof.—' Owen O’Connor of Corrasduna had four 
 
9 
 
 sons: Roderick, of Ballycahir; Thomas, of Miltown; Denis, 
 of Willsbrook ; and Bernard, in holy orders. They were 
 the friends and contemporaries of Dominick O’Connor Don, 
 of Clonalis, and resided in his neighbourhood. It did not 
 require any deep historical knowledge, or the aid of a 
 magician or antiquary, to enable the sons of Major Owen 
 O’Connor to ascertain who was his grandfather. They had 
 no interest, no bias, no conceivable object to induce them to 
 lead their children astray ; and the undoubted reputation of 
 the three families founded by them is, that Bryan O’Connor, 
 one of the sons of Sir Hugh, was the grandfather of Major 
 Owen O’Connor.” 
 
 “ Second proof. — The important evidence of Dominick 
 O’Connor Don, who mentioned in his will that Denis 
 O’Connor, of Willsbrook, was his cousin.” 
 
 On these two solitary proofs Mr. O’Cohor has based his 
 claim ; and on these, which he calls conclusive, he has ipso 
 facto consented to let it stand or fall. We will, therefore, 
 for argument sake, grant all the assertions contained in them, 
 and will judge of each on its own merits. We will not ask 
 how it is proved that there ever was such a man as Owen 
 O’Connor, of Corrasduna ; or that he had four sons, or that 
 those named were his sons, and were friends of Dominick 
 O’Connor. We will not deny that it did not require any 
 deep historical knowledge, or the aid of a magician, for the 
 sons of Major O’Connor to discover who was their father’s 
 grandfather ; nor will we question the fact that they had no 
 bias to lead their children astray, or that the undoubted 
 reputation of the families founded by them was such as 
 Mr. O’Cohor states. We will not cavil any of these 
 statements ; we will grant them all for the time-being, and 
 will take the argument as it stands. In this, as in many 
 other arguments, Mr. O’Cohor himself furnishes us with 
 
10 
 
 the means of refutation. By drawing a parallel case, we can 
 easily discover what he thinks of such reasoning as he 
 employs when it is employed against him. 
 
 Charles O’Conor, the grandfather of Owen O’Conor, of 
 Belanagare, lived at the close of the last century, and surely 
 it did not require any deep historical knowledge, or the aid 
 of a magician, to enable him to tell who was his father’s 
 grandfather. He had no bias to induce him to lead his 
 children astray, or what is fully as strong, he was “ incapa- 
 ble” of being influenced by such a bias.* Now, the tradi- 
 tion handed down by him, not merely by words, but by 
 writings, as Mr. O’Conor himself confesses, is that Charles, 
 third son of Sir Hugh, was his father’s grandfather. In the 
 next place, Owen O’Connor, of Belanagare, is mentioned as 
 cousin in the will of Dominick O'Connor, even before Denis 
 O’Connor, of Willsbrook. Both of these facts, as well in 
 their details as in their entirety, have been admitted in the 
 pamphlet before us; and forming, as they do, exact parallels 
 to the “ proofs” above given, one would would naturally 
 expect that a like conclusion would be drawn from them. 
 Yet such is not the case, for where Mr. Arthur O’Conor 
 speaks of Owen O’Conor, of Belanagare, as being manifestly 
 descended from Sir Hugh O’Conor, he is at once met with 
 the declaration that “ this is mere statement,” no proof at 
 all. Thus, Mr. O’Conor himself assures us, that his hereto- 
 fore conclusive evidence is nothing but “ mere statement.” 
 We are very far, however, from granting in reality all the 
 assertions which are presumed in the argument ; and it ap- 
 pears to us, that it would have been quite as reasonable in 
 
 * See note g, p. 42 of Mr. O’Conor’s pamphlet, where he states that Charles 
 O’Conor was incapable of changing his name with any unfair intention, conse- 
 quently incapable of wilfully transmitting to his children an erroneous statement 
 with respect to his parents. 
 
11 
 
 him to have asked us at once to credit his conclusion as 
 any of his premises, since both rest merely on his authority; 
 and, if we are to rely upon his authority in the one case, 
 there is no reason why we should reject it in the other. 
 
 In the foregoing argument, then, w r e have merely granted 
 his premises for the time being, in order to show that he 
 himself, granting the like to us, drew from them a totally 
 opposite conclusion. Hence, we have clearly shown out of 
 Mr. O’Conor’s own words, that his “ convincing proofs” are 
 but a repetition of gratuitous assertions, and that even judged 
 by analogy to himself, he has as yet brought forward nothing 
 but “ mere statement” to support his claim. In the second 
 of the above proofs he appears to us to have been particu- 
 larly unfortunate, for not only does it in no way seem to 
 support his claim, but rather tells against it. In this proof 
 we are are told that Dominick O’Connor mentioned Denis 
 O’Connor of Willsbrook in his will as cousin, and left him a 
 particular legacy as such ; but we are not informed whether 
 he named the representatives of the Ballycahir and Miltown 
 families as like relatives. We find, indeed, in another por- 
 tion of this pamphlet, that they were mentioned in this will, 
 but not as cousins, and after a man who, even according to 
 Mr. R. O'Coiior, was but a very distant relative of the 
 Corrasduna family. Now, if his first statement was correct, 
 if Roderick was the eldest, Thomas the second, and Denis 
 the third son, and if they were all friends and contempora- 
 ries of Dominick O’Connor, how can we account for the 
 singularity in the will, which placed the youngest brother 
 in a very high position, and dignified him with the title of 
 kinsman, while it passed over the two elder brothers, and 
 mentioned their families only at its close, after all others of 
 the name O’Connor had been already noticed? The con- 
 clusion, then, which naturally suggests itself to these two 
 
12 
 
 statements is, not that the Ballycahir and Miltown families 
 were cousins of the O’Conors of Clonalis, but that either 
 Mr. O’Conor was wrong in the plan of relationship which 
 he arranged in his first statement, or that Dominick O’Con- 
 nor used the term cousin merely as a friendly appellative, 
 addressed to those who bore the name “ O’Connor.” 
 
 With these, his “ proofs ” of his own descent, Mr. 
 O’Cohor concludes the first three letters of this “ludicrously 
 absurd correspondence and as far as they go, they surely 
 bear out this character given them by himself. We will next 
 briefly notice one or two remarks appended as notes to Mr. 
 Arthur O’Conor’s letters. As the greater part of the 
 matter contained in these notes has been already alluded to, 
 being in almost every instance either a repetition of what 
 appeared in the letters, or a direct contradiction of it, we 
 will confine ourselves merely to a few which we deem worthy 
 of particular attention. Amongst those, the first that attracts 
 our notice is that on the pedigree said to have been drawn up 
 by Mr. Matthew O’Conor, and given in the appendix to the 
 pamphlet. This pedigree, which is most unmercifully 
 attacked in the above-named note, is evidently meant to 
 comprise only the descent of the O’Conors of Belanagare ; 
 and being such, of course has nothing whatever to do with 
 any other branch of the family. That it was not intended 
 as a general pedigree is evident from various statements 
 made in it, but the following one, with respect to Charles 
 O’Conor, third son of Sir Hugh, is in itself quite sufficient 
 to place this beyond dispute. This Charles, we are told in 
 it, was the third son of Hugh. Now, if Mr. Matthew 
 O’Conor intended this as a general pedigree, he surely 
 would not tell us that Charles was the third son, without, 
 at the same time mentioning his two elder brothers, an 
 omission which at once signified that it was not intended as 
 
13 
 
 a general pedigree. If he had intended to deceive, and to 
 pass off as a general, what in reality was but a particular 
 pedigree, he certainly went a very wrong way about it when 
 he told us that Charles was the third son, and very little 
 deserves the character of being shrewd and calculating, the 
 more especially as he might so easily have avoided the 
 difficulty by merely stating that Charles was the son of 
 Hugh. This very fact, then, of his specially mentioning 
 that he was the third son sufficiently demonstrates that the 
 pedigree was compiled solely to mark the descents of the 
 Belanagare branch of the O’Conors, and as such it can in 
 no way be found fault with, whoever was its compiler, and 
 Mr. Matthew O’Conor most assuredly was not.* 
 
 The no f e attached to page 47 affords little occasion for 
 remark, so far as its matter is concerned. It owes its chief 
 attraction to the unintelligible form in which it is presented. 
 We have had already occasion to observe how considerably 
 our progress towards adequately understanding the strength 
 of some of Mr. O’Cohor’s arguments has been impeded by 
 the length of some of his sentences. In this note we have 
 to encounter “ a length of limb” which steps leagues beyond 
 our power of understanding. In fact, Mr. O’Conor himself 
 seems to have forgotten the commencement before he came 
 within sight of the end, and so, through the feebleness of 
 human memory, left us a sentence, no doubt replete with 
 sentiment, but unfortunately devoid of sense. It may have 
 been scared away by the remembrance of the old soldier of 
 Emla, and of the “ Deserted Village,” “ who shouldered his 
 crutch and showed how fields were won.” Nor is it wonder- 
 
 * This pedigree, so unceasingly ascribed by Mr. O’Conor to the late Mr. 
 Matthew O’ Conor, is copied verbatim from the original, in the handwriting of 
 Charles O’Conor, the historian, which was placed in the hands of Mr. Hardiman, 
 when preparing his “West Connaught.” 
 
14 
 
 ful that memories so softening, enhanced by domestic asso- 
 ciations, should have diverted the conclusion of Mr. 
 O’Conor’s sentence from its due subordination to its com- 
 mencement. 
 
 Lastly, we come to a statement put forward at the close 
 of these notes, which is so inconsistent with what was put 
 forward in the commencement of the pamphlet, that we do 
 not think it ought to be passed over in silence. Mr. O’Cohor 
 states that he does not know whether the Belanagare 
 family are descended from Sir Hugh O’Connor, and that, in 
 fact, he strongly doubts it. How well this accords with the 
 first statement, “ that there is no doubt or uncertainty what- 
 ever with respect to the genealogies of the three branches 
 of O’Connors.” “ No conflicting evidence.” 
 
 All that now remains to be reviewed of this self-convict- 
 ing pamphlet are the two last letters of Mr. Roderick 
 O’Cohor. The first of these, as it is entirely taken up with 
 abuse of Mr. A. O’Conor, we will pass over in silence. If 
 it advanced any new argument, or if it exhibited the unusual 
 novelty of a proof, we would deal with it ; but we shall not 
 stoop to discuss its abusiveness; it merits but the contempt 
 of our silence. The second, however, requires more com- 
 ment, for in it we have the certificate of Sir Bernard Burke 
 respecting the descent and genealogy of the Miltown family. 
 We will not now enter into any discussion as to the value of 
 this certificate, as the doing so might lead us beyond the 
 limits assigned to this little sketch, but will satisfy ourselves 
 with remarking that a somewhat similar testimony of a pre- 
 vious “ Ulster king-at-arms” was scoffed at by Mr. O’Cohor, 
 and considered of no value whatever. Besides, it is evident 
 that he either considers this certificate sufficient to prove 
 his descent, or he does not. If he does, why take up so 
 much time and paper in putting forward feeble arguments 
 
15 
 
 and foolish assertions ? and if he does not, having already 
 considered the value of his arguments, we can see at a glance 
 how weak and still unsupported are his pretensions. 
 
 So far, then, his last letter accomplishes little more than 
 those which preceded it ; and in merit of composition and 
 display of ignorance it falls far below them. Thus we find 
 in it that he accuses “ Charles O’Connor, of Belanagare, of 
 a gross error in calling Andrew O’Connor, of Clonalis, An- 
 drew of Ballintubber not remembering, or perhaps not 
 knowing, that after the Ballintubber branch of the family 
 became extinct in the male line, the Clonalis branch claimed 
 the right to be, and always considered themselves, as the 
 O’Conors of Ballintubber. Nor was this right given up, or 
 this claim abandoned until Alexander O’Connor, by taking 
 forcible possession of the lands of Ballintubber, forfeited his 
 legal right in them; and by an unwise attempt to regain 
 them, deprived his family of their just inheritance. Mr. 
 O’Conor, therefore, in commenting on the presumed igno- 
 rance of Charles O’Conor, only the more fully proclaims 
 his own, and with this display ends the last letter of the 
 pamphlet. Having thus arrived at the close of the review 
 of each individual part of the work, it might, perhaps, be 
 expected that we would at once come to a conclusion, nor 
 would we hesitate to do so, but that a few general observa- 
 tions appear still to be necessary. 
 
 It will be recollected, that throughout the whole of the 
 pamphlet the idea that Mr. O’Conor claimed ralationship 
 with the Belanagare family has been entirely scouted. He 
 disdains to advance such a claim; he declares he is de- 
 scended, unquestionably, from Sir Hugh O’Connor, of Ballin- 
 tubber; that the Belanagare family, perhaps, have a-like 
 descent, but that he greatly doubts it, and, therefore, does 
 not at all wish to put any relationship on them. In the next 
 
16 
 
 place he takes up the entire of his second letter in endea- 
 vouring to prove that the spelling of the name O’Conor 
 with one n is erroneous, and was never adopted by any but 
 the late generation of Belanagare family. Coupling these 
 two statements, then, with the fact that he himself lately 
 adopted the one n spelling of the name, we find ourselves 
 called upon to believe the following grotesque proposition, 
 viz. : — 
 
 That, because a family of impostors, or persons whom it 
 is probable are impostors, have taken it into their heads to 
 spell an old name in an erroneous manner, the true and 
 undoubted members of the family, to which that name 
 belongs, of their own will and choice change the true spell- 
 ing for the false one ! 
 
 This is literally what the public are asked to believe ; 
 and we leave it to common sense to decide whether a more 
 absurd proposition could be propounded. That a man 
 should spell his name in an erroneous manner, because a 
 pretender to the name thought proper to do so, is so su- 
 premely preposterous that one can hardly entertain the 
 notion for a moment. Mr. O’Conor himself, indeed, seems 
 to have discovered the perplexing situation into which he 
 was led by the adoption of the name preserved by him 
 throughout the entire of this pamphlet; and in his late 
 “ Notice of the O’Connors,” he has endeavoured to rectify 
 his mistake. How far he has been successful in this endea- 
 vour, and how much the late change has effected for him, 
 we shall hereafter judge, when we come to review his latest 
 speculations on the name of O’Conor ; for the present it is 
 sufficient to remark that any further comment on the con- 
 tents of the first pamphlet becomes quite unnecessary, as this 
 last absurdity sufficiently stamps its character. It will be 
 observed, that the refutation of this “ memoir” has been 
 
17 
 
 derived from the memoir itself; that we have confine 
 ourselves to exhibiting its conflicting and self-destructive 
 arguments and evidences. Did we permit ourselves to pass 
 beyond these limits, we would have to reveal even still 
 more equivocal dealings with truth. We could prove to 
 the public, that what Mr. O’Conor represents in his 
 memoir as exact and genuine copies of the letters which 
 originally appeared in the public journals, are not such; 
 that an inscription, which he quotes in support of his views, 
 has been in part suppressed, and that other subterfuges of a 
 kindred character have been employed by him. In a word, 
 his purposes were made the law of his truth, and they had 
 been formed to the service of an irritated self-love. 
 
 In conclusion, we have only to remark, that it seems 
 rather strange that Mr. O’Conor did not undertake the 
 vindication of his family at an early period. 
 
 The pedigrees of which he complains, and the other 
 notices, which he says, “ forced him into this discussion,” 
 were all published many years ago, and he was silent on 
 their publication. Surely they were quite as objectionable 
 then as now, and far more easily refuted, if it be true, as he 
 says, that many persons were then living who could prove 
 their falsity. Why did he not then insist on justice being 
 done to his family ? Why did he wait until his witnesses 
 were dead, and until all his proof dwindled into assertion? 
 From what we have already seen, the solving of this enigma 
 cannot be very difficult. He was well aware that at that 
 time there were too many persons living who knew the true 
 origin of his family, and whose testimony must have de- 
 feated his pretensions. He, therefore, waited his time until 
 that evidence he dreaded might be silenced in death, and 
 then put forward his bold claims, when he supposed he 
 might most securely advance them. This, at least, he has 
 
 C 
 
18 
 
 accomplished ; he has displayed much that marks a feeble 
 and ill-constituted mind, and has left a notable example of 
 the perplexities and difficulties into which a disregard of 
 truth will always lead. His claim was a lofty one; he 
 would have it that he was descended from the ancient 
 monarchs of Ireland ; but before he would attempt the diffi- 
 cult task of proving this ancient descent, we would advise 
 him, in the first instance, to give satisfactory evidence re- 
 specting his ancestors for the last three deceased generations. 
 In other words, let him prove who his great grandfather was. 
 This he has not as yet done, as his statement about Major 
 Owen O'Connor, of Corrasduna, is mere assertion, and until 
 he has accomplished so much it is perfectly absurd to go 
 back to a more remote period. He acknowledges the 
 descent of the Belanagare family even in the pamphlet 
 before us, as far back, at least, as the great grandfather of 
 the present living generation ; and, surely it is not too much 
 to ask, that before he would attempt to cast any shadow on 
 the genealogy of that family, he would prove his own 
 descent for at least as long a period. 
 

REVIEW OF MR. O’CONOR’S 
 
 " NOTICE OF THE ANCIENT O’CONNORS OF ROSCOMMON.” 
 
 “ When a man pretends to relate facts which involve the re- 
 putation of others, he ought to adhere strictly to the line of truth, 
 lest he be branded with the name of calumniator, and expose him- 
 self to the reproach of propagating falsehood.” 
 
 Mr. O'Cohor’s views on the subject of the O’Conor 
 family, however strenuously and angrily put forward in the 
 memoir just reviewed, were not destined to remain long 
 unchanged. Genealogical theories may be as absurd and 
 whimsical, and as short-lived as other theories; and if the 
 taste of the writer of the “notice” of the Ballintubber family 
 lead him absurdly to form such, he but exercises a freeman’s 
 right in changing them to what he pleases, and as often as 
 he pleases. We shall not now discuss the existence of 
 that right, or how far the public ought to be protected from 
 its being abused. Yet while confining ourselves to the 
 subject of our review, we must consider it in connection with 
 the motives which appear to have given it birth. 
 
 Most persons, while laboring under the effects of dis- 
 appointed vanity and irritated self-love, have their extrava- 
 gances. Some unwisely parade them before their friends ; 
 a few are so unfortunate as to publish them. These, desti- 
 tute of good sense to restrain them or to guide' them, unad- 
 vised or ill-advised, with the weakness of vexed folly draw 
 
22 
 
 down upon themselves and their passions the scourge of 
 public notice, and while they imagine it is avenging them 
 for a time fail to perceive it has fallen upon their own heads 
 in the shape of contempt. Mr. CfConor’s self-love was 
 irritated, his pride and unreasoning vanity were wounded, 
 wounded beyond forgiveness; and we cannot choose but 
 assign him a place amongst the most unfortunate of those 
 who before him became the victims of these evil in- 
 fluences, Neither more wise in avoiding the strictures of 
 public notice, nor meeting them in more seemly garb, his 
 language is without propriety; statements hazarded without 
 proof and without truth ; arguments advanced and contra- 
 dicted; views lightly formed and as lightly abandoned. 
 That this should be so scarcely surprises us. Passion is 
 rarely choice in its vocabulary, or balanced and consistent in 
 its arguments, and all the more unfit to sustain the public 
 gaze. There existed an apriore likelihood that the “ notice” 
 would contradict the “ memoir;” it is the usual and expected 
 result of a false position, which rarely reckons consistency 
 amongst its incidents. Perhaps their author calculated that 
 a theory unscrupulously put forward might be as unscrupu- 
 lously abandoned. Whether justly or no we resign to the 
 public the task of determining ; for as we have to deal with 
 Mr. O'Conor’s latest speculations on the O’Conor family, 
 henceforth we shall confine ourselves to their considera- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor, appearing to regard with considerable horror 
 the notices on the O’Conor family and their descent, by 
 Weld, Hardiman, and others, who, “ though of considerable 
 authority, were not beyond the corrupting influence of the 
 late Mr. Matthew O’Conor,” starts wfith a declaration that it 
 is those notices alone which have induced him to offer 
 observations intended to save the public from an imposture. 
 
23 
 
 The grounds on which Mr. M. O’Conor relied to sustain 
 this cheat are represented to be principally three : the name 
 O’Conor, in relation to its orthograhy ; the title “ Don,” and 
 lastly, the lineal descent of Owen O’Conor from Sir Hugh 
 O’Connor Don, as established by the pedigrees of Charles 
 O’Connor, the historian, together with the accompanying 
 descent of the Belanagare estates. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor, whose taste for digression is very remark- 
 able, and largely productive of perspicuity in his style, 
 here favors his readers with a few remarks, by anticipation, 
 on these pedigrees, and the purposes for which they were 
 constructed. If these remarks, or rather the sentence in 
 which they were intended to be conveyed, do not claim 
 exemption from the ordinary rules of syntax, Charles 
 O’Conor’s pedigrees must have been of a very anomalous 
 description. To quote a statement from a pedigree, and to 
 give the writer’s own remarks upon it, does not appear to be 
 a matter of great difficulty ; at least it does not seem to 
 require any extraordinary talent for arrangement. Yet Mr. 
 O’Conor evidently finds it an intricate operation, unless, 
 indeed, he has sought to protect his observations by perplex- 
 ing them, or feared to cheapen their value by making them 
 too intelligible. In the instance before us, Charles O’Conor’s 
 pedigrees are the victims of our author’s obscurity, whether 
 nature or art have armed him for their destruction What 
 the contents of these pedigrees are, what Mr. O’Conor infers 
 from their contents, and what he complains of in them, are 
 alike represented as forming portion of the same pedigrees. 
 But his own account of them, in his own works, and with 
 his own arrangement, will better explain our meaning, 
 though it helps little towards explaining his. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor proceeds to give what is contained in the 
 pedigrees in these terms : u According to them (the pedigrees) 
 
24 
 
 Charles O’Connor was born in 1710, and was ten years of 
 age when his father purchased Belanagare, and must have 
 known that the estate did not descend to his father, as was 
 improperly stated in those pedigrees.” Here the date of 
 C. O’Conor’s birth is not more referable to “ according to 
 them” nor more clearly classed amongst the contents of the 
 pedigree than are the statements that his father purchased 
 Belanagare when he was ten years old, and that he must 
 have known that Belanagare did not come to his father by 
 descent; while, in the same breath, we are told that, accord- 
 ing to the pedigree, it did come to his father by descent. 
 Mr. O’Conor may have intended some of these as his own 
 remarks and deductions, by way of comment on the pedi- 
 grees, but the form of his sentence furnishes no clue to his 
 intentions, and we are left in the dark as to how much of it 
 appeared in the pedigrees, and how much was supplied by 
 himself. It may be a question how far a writer deserves 
 credit for what he intends to convey as distinguished from 
 what he does convey ; but in many instances Mr. O’Cohor’s 
 trespasses are beyond indulgence. Though little illuminated 
 by the passage before us, we may, however, guess our way 
 to what our author intended. We suppose he wished to 
 accuse the compiler of these pedigrees w r ith having know- 
 ingly falsified them in the item of the descent to his family 
 of the estate of Belanagare. It is strange that Mr. O’Conor 
 so readily forgets his own statement in his Memoir, that 
 these pedigrees were framed with a u conscientious adherence 
 to well-known facts;” forgets that he repeatedly pronounced 
 both Charles and Owen O’Conor “ incapable” of acting with 
 an unfair intention, and that whatever was dishonest lay to 
 the account of another. We refer to these remarks, not, 
 indeed, as a defence of those who need not such defence, but 
 to balance a valueless charge with a valueless commendation. 
 
25 
 
 We would be sorry to rest integrity unimpeachable as theirs 
 on this testimony, surely not improved in worth when we 
 consider the source whence it emanates. 
 
 The purpose, or purposes, which appear to Mr. O’Conor 
 to have led to the falsification of the pedigrees are exhibited 
 in a string of preliminary assertions, into which he is again 
 hurried by his love of digressionary tirade ; when he passes 
 on to proofs we shall aid in correcting his notions as to their 
 value. In the meantime we satisfy ourselves with observing, 
 that from the opening of his essay he is true to himself. 
 He does not descend below his own level, but manages at 
 once to find it. No doubt he esteems “ Connor M‘Cormick” 
 a happy hit; we hope he may continue to make many such. 
 The more he indulges his native wit the better known will 
 he become, and the more clearly revealed. Fortunately, 
 what is designed to be most offensive is not always found to 
 be most persuasive, nor are men likely to measure the 
 veracity of an author by his scurrility. Fortunately, too, 
 falsehood is seldom mistaken for truth, and is in no wise 
 more distinguishable than in its intemperance. 
 
 With an ample attendance of notes of admiration, no 
 doubt intended also to mark indignation, Mr. O’Conor in- 
 troduces what he pronounces to be an erroneous statement 
 and an insinuation, both of which he puts to the credit of 
 Mr. Matthew O'Conor. The statement was to the effect 
 that the Clonalis branch of the Ballintubber family had 
 become extinct; while the insinuation stripped the Corras- 
 duna branch of its posterity, which our author wrathfully 
 proclaims to be a vile and proofless slander. If this passage 
 induces the reader to share in the horror of the writer, it 
 will be more indebted for success to its impressive voca- 
 bulary and these useful marks of admiration than to any 
 truth or good sense it may cont&ii? When was Mr. Matthew 
 
26 
 
 O’Conor guilty of the statement or of the insinuation? 
 We are referred to a controversy which took place in 1854, 
 about ten years subsequent to his death ! It was a disagree- 
 able dream, but the dreamer should not have printed it. It 
 is not denied, nor has it been denied, chat the Clonalis 
 branch survives in the female line, but the male line did 
 terminate with Alexander O’Conor Don ; and family 
 settlements, the expression of O’Conor pride and O’Conor 
 traditions, preserved that portion of their family property 
 for those who, with the blood possessed also the name of 
 this ancient race. 
 
 Mr. O’Cohor’s indignation, however, is more especially 
 awakened by the doubt which he states to have been cast 
 on the marriage of Brian O’Conor, and on the pretensions of 
 those who claimed to be his descendants. With respect to 
 the marriage, it does not appear to have been so well known 
 that to demand information on it necessarily amounted to an 
 insincerity, or covered an insinuation ; on the latter head, 
 namely, the pretensions of those who would be his descen- 
 dants, Mr. O’Conor may complain of doubts being entertained, 
 doubts, which we imagine, he would find it hard to remove. 
 If he would only revive his legal memories he might be 
 enabled to perceive their reasonableness. Where the ex- 
 istence of issue has never been heard of by those relations, 
 who in the usual course of things would be made aware of 
 it, in law it has always been held a prima facie evidence 
 against the birth of such issue, and the onus of proving rests 
 with those whose interest it may be to establish the contrary. 
 To require this is not a vile and proofless slander; it is good 
 law and common sense, and the house of Belanagare acts at 
 variance with neither when refusing to acknowledge claims 
 w T hich neither the traditions of the family nor the proofs of 
 the claimants render probable. In this, as in other instances, 
 
27 
 
 we notice the especial valour of Mr. B. O’Conor when 
 he has to deal with the character of those who are dead, and 
 consequently unable to defend themselves. Were the late 
 Mr. Matthew O’Conor of Mount Druid still alive the valour 
 now so rampant would still chafe within its bounds or rest in 
 uncomplaining peace. Before that gentleman’s decease it 
 found no voice to utter its denunciations or to avenge itself, 
 though then, as now, existed those same causes of complaint 
 which even at the eleventh hour call forth Mr. O’Coiior’s 
 indignation. We may well ask why was he silent then ? why 
 sat he so long and so patiently beneath the shadow of a vile 
 and proofless slander? why did he wait till death had set a 
 barrier between him and his adversary? But we shall not 
 press for an answer. We do believe that Mr. O Conor acted 
 with a prudence exceeding great. 
 
 Being now about to overturn Mr. Matthew O’Conor’s 
 three positions, our author announces the comprehensiveness 
 of his attack in a model sentence: — “ We shall now proceed 
 to show,” he says, “ by evidence that cannot be questioned, 
 that none of the three grounds relied on by Mr. M. O’Conor 
 have any foundation whatever; that Owen O’Conor did 
 not represent the third son of Sir Hugh O'Connor, or the 
 old O’Connors of Belanagare, but was descended from Denis 
 O’Connor, of Killantranny, county Sligo, who we believe was 
 in no way connected with them, and was descended from an 
 ancestor of a totally different name (some say Connor 
 M‘Cormick).” This passage, like a previous one, is less re- 
 commended by the accuracy of its arrangement than by the 
 beautiful jumble it presents, and the marvellous variety of 
 transitions. Starting with a promise of evidence that could 
 not be questioned, it hastens to draw to its relief the author’s 
 own belief or disbelief, adding, as a make-weight, the saying 
 of some person or persons unknown. Before, however, he 
 
28 
 
 puts spear in rest to do battle, with the chivalry of a knight 
 of the middle ages, he tells his just cause why none are to 
 escape his wrath. Since it appears that Messrs. Denis and 
 Arthur O’Conor notified that they were acting with the 
 concurrence of the whole of their family in putting forward 
 statements disagreeable to Mr. R. O’Conor, as a consequence 
 the pedigree of the whole family must pay the penalty of the 
 admission. It strikes us that it was unwise to invest a 
 notice appended to a history of Ireland, and purporting to 
 regard an historical family , with a personal character. If the 
 notice was in its proper place it mattered little to the public 
 whether it was brought there by the offence of one or of a 
 dozen; and small confidence is due to the historian whose 
 hesitation and reserve give way only in proportion as his 
 passions are moved. But, no doubt, Mr. O’Conor will 
 smile at our calling him an historian. Mr. Macaulay accuses 
 Montgomery of having stolen the only good idea in his 
 book, and of having spoiled it in the stealing. Mr. R. 
 O’Coiior’s literary thefts are a little more numerous, and he 
 avoided spoiling them all by being in their transcription 
 very literal. However, he is not without some claims to a 
 share in such animadversion. Whatever is good in his 
 history is borrowed ; and wherever he ventures to meddle 
 with the loan he is sure to spoil it. So far as he is a 
 faithful copyist, (whereas the originals are accessible), he 
 does neither good nor harm, but when he puts away his 
 staff, ever so little, it is marvellous how soon he totters and 
 falls. 
 
 Mr. O’Cohor’s profound disquisitions on the name 
 O’Conor present little to entitle them to serious attention. 
 The correct mode of translating an Irish name into English 
 may form a very suitable subject for a philological discus- 
 sion, but its decision can in no wise affect the certainty of 
 
29 
 
 a descent resting upon testimony quite independent of the 
 views which may be held as to the mere spelling of a name. It 
 is to the denial of that descent, and the mass of mis-state- 
 ment and nonsense which accompany it, we wish more 
 particularly to address ourselves ; yet we shall spare a few 
 remarks to a subordinate absurdity. 
 
 The information which Mr. O’Conor furnishes us on the 
 spelling of the name O’Conor rests partly on his own autho- 
 rity — partly on that of his learned friend, Mr. O’Brennan, 
 on whom he has conferred a doctorship, no doubt in ap- 
 appreciation of his great merits. We are assured that 
 O’Connor is the true spelling of the name, and that it may 
 be written in two ways, either O’Connor or O’Conor, the 
 stroke (’) over the n in the latter denoting an abbreviation . 
 
 In support of the first part of this proposition is cited a 
 rule discovered by Mr. O’Brennan to be invariable; and 
 Mr. O’Conor on his own authority superadds, as an addi- 
 tional piece of information, that O’Connor may also be 
 correctly written O’Conor. We presume he must have in- 
 tended this as a legitimate English form of the name, or as 
 a legitimate Irish form of it. In either hypothesis, he has 
 permitted his explanation to run counter to his intention. 
 If “ O’Connor” be “ undoubtedly” the true way of spelling 
 the name, and if it rnay also be written correctly O’Conor, 
 it is because the mark of abbreviation (") over the n re- 
 presents the absent letter of the English form; so that 
 O’Conor would be an English abbreviation of O’Connor. 
 But Mr. O’Conor explains his views by stating that this 
 mark (“) owes its value to a rule not of English Grammar , 
 but of Irish grammar , and that it is unknown in the Eng- 
 lish language. This being assumed, it is clear that this 
 mark, or character, being unknown in the English language, 
 cannot be forced into representing one of its letters, or into 
 
30 
 
 denoting the absence of such a letter. The language placed 
 at the mercy of the rules of other languages, and subject 
 to the visitation of marks and characters unknown to its own 
 grammar, would be likely to undergo strange metamorphoses. 
 From all this we may fairly conclude that O’Cohor is not 
 a legitimate form of O’Connor, if it were intended to pass 
 as an English form. On the other hand, we know that it 
 is not the Irish form, nor does Mr. O’Cohor appear to 
 desire it should be esteemed as such. For he agrees with 
 Mr. O’Brennan, and quotes Mr. O’Brennan’s rule, and com- 
 pliments Mr. O’Brennan’s scholarship, and both the rule 
 and the scholarship are decidedly adverse to the supposi- 
 tion that O’Cohor is a correct Irish form of the name. This 
 form, then, being unclaimed by either language, its author’s 
 title to it is not likely to be disputed ; we, at least, fully 
 acknowledge his right of ownership, and wish him a long 
 and undisturbed possession of his invention. We may be 
 permitted to superadd a hope, that the joint labors of him- 
 self and his very learned confrere, Mr. O’Brennan, in arrang- 
 ing the authography of the name O’Conor, shall ever 
 continue to be as well-directed, as ably pursued, and as 
 sufficiently rewarded. It has already led to great results, 
 and we have watched with interest the progress of con- 
 viction. Into not less than three names, within a fewer 
 number of years, have Mr. O’Cohor’s convictions hurried 
 him — O'Connor , O Conor, and 0 Conor . We hope he will 
 not discover reasons for additional reform. 
 
 With regard to the various family documents and other 
 evidences which Mr. O’Cohor cites in favor of the second 
 we have an easy explanation to offer. The fallacy known 
 as “ ignoratio elenchi” may be incurred, either by proving 
 what is not denied or by denying what has not been as- 
 serted. We are left at no loss for illustrations of both forms 
 
31 
 
 in the subject of our review. Abundant care is lavished in 
 proving what no one denies, and in denying what no one 
 asserts. The exclusive use of the one n in the name 
 O’Conor has never been maintained . It could not have 
 been in the face of innumerable family documents , and if 
 Mr. O’Conor imagined the contrary, he would have saved 
 himself the expenditure of much labor by the exercise of a 
 little common sense. The O’Conors of Belanagare have 
 long used a single rc, not because the name was always so 
 spelled, but because the most gifted Irish scholar of his day 
 decided it ought always to have been so spelled. Mr. 
 O’Conor esteeming it to be a distinctive mark of the 
 O’Conors of Ballintubber, sought to adopt it expressly in 
 support of his new-born pretensions, and when he was not 
 permitted quietly to assume it, as in the fable, the grapes 
 grew sour. 
 
 The first specimen of the “ unquestionable evidence” 
 which we were invited to inspect, is an alleged “ news- 
 paper war” between Alexander O'Conor Don and Owen 
 O’Conor, in December, 1817. It is true a correspondence 
 did occur at that period, and in reference to the O’Conor 
 family, but we owe the names to Mr. O’Conor himself. 
 Past events always improve in the hands of a man of genius 
 and originality, and though we may complain of being 
 deceived into forming a wrong estimate of this correspon- 
 dence, we must acknowledge the forethought which pro- 
 vided against its depreciation. We cannot, however, much 
 though we may be inclined to honor our author’s ingenuity, 
 conspire with him in suppressing a piece of information 
 which utterly destroys the whole force of this correspondence, 
 if it ever really possessed any. It was anonymous , and 
 being mere assertion w T as, therefore, valueless. The asser- 
 tion of an unknown man cannot, of course, have any weight, 
 
32 
 
 and if an anonymous correspondence rests merely on the 
 authority of its writer, it is at once rendered unworthy of 
 consideration. No value can ever attach to such pro- 
 ductions, except where proof is produced in support of the 
 statements brought forward in them ; that is to say, when 
 they may bring conviction without any reference to the 
 authority of their author ; when this is the case they may be 
 even stronger evidence than those documents which rely 
 upon a name, but otherwise they are worthless. Now, this 
 can never be an attribute of anonymous assertion , and hence 
 the necessity Mr. O’Conor was under of supplying it the 
 sanction of a name. 
 
 Apart from this, it is not even likely that Alexander 
 O’Conor Don and Owen O’Conor were engaged in this 
 controversy, as they had no hostile interests; but as our 
 granting for the time being Mr. O’Conor’s supposition will 
 not much interfere with us, we cheerfully consent to allow 
 the authorship, for argument sake, and to consider the cor- 
 respondence as coming from the individuals he names. To 
 do him justice we must admit, that if he ventured to make 
 all-important additions to this correspondence in the first in- 
 stance, he essays to make honorable compensation by im- 
 portant omissions in the second instance. According to his 
 account of the controversy , Alexander O’Connor Don insisted 
 that he was the only lineal male representative then living 
 of Roderick O’Connor, monarch of Ireland, while Owen in- 
 sisted on his claims to be such, (after Alexander) derived 
 from the first O’Conor Don. This Alexander denied, and 
 besides alleging the mode in which Owen spelled his name, 
 asserted that he could produce in support of his denials an 
 authenticated pedigree more than a hundred years’ old. We 
 have put Mr. O’Conor’s intended version of the controversy 
 in an intelligible form. Were we to give it in his own words, 
 
33 
 
 this duly authenticated pedigree would be made to prove, 
 not alone that Owen O’Conor w 7 as descended from a col- 
 lateral branch of the family, but that an Irish scholar would 
 be satisfied, from the mode in which Owen spelled his 
 name, that he was not at all descended from that family, a 
 feat rather out of the line of ordinary pedigrees. Mr. 
 O’Conor has a very decided taste for spoiling pedigrees, but 
 he never operates on them so effectually as when he 
 manages to involve them in his well-constructed sentences. 
 
 The controversy, however, did not determine with this 
 letter of Alexander O’Conor Don, as we are led to suppose. 
 The unanswered and unanswerable reply is suppressed with 
 more prudence than honesty. It begins by correcting the 
 error into which the writers of the previous letters had 
 fallen, on the subject of a lineal descent from Roderick 
 O’Conor, the last monarch of Ireland; yet its author is 
 charged with committing the very error which he thus cor- 
 rected. It notices, in the next place, the worthlessness of 
 the argument derived from that mode of spelling O’Conor 
 which the gifted and learned Charles O’Conor had ad- 
 vocated, and which, at best, involved a mere question of 
 Irish scholarship. While it denied the existence, or at least 
 the authenticity of the old pedigree, to which allusion has 
 already been made, it established, step by step, Owen 
 O’Conor’s unbroken and indisputable descent from Sir Hugh 
 O’Conor Don, challenging any one to question or contro- 
 vene its accuracy. This terminated the “ newspaper war” 
 of December, 1817, and January, 1818, which was mutilated 
 and garbled, in order to fit its place in Mr. O’Conor’s pile of 
 “ unquestionable evidence.” Before passing away from this 
 subject, we must acknowledge that we feel it difficult to re- 
 concile the possession, by Alexander O’Conor Don, of a 
 duly authenticated pedigree of more than one hundred years 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 antiquity, and complete enough to determine, not alone who 
 were, but who were not, the lineal descendants of Sir Hugh 
 O’Conor Don, with a statement previously made by Mr. 
 R. O’Cohor, that Dominick O’Connor, the immediate prede- 
 cessor and brother of this Alexander, was so much at the 
 mercy of the pedigrees compiled by Charles O’Connor the 
 historian, that. he was induced by them to limit away his 
 estates to the disherison of his own nephew. Nor is the 
 difficulty diminished when we remember that in a letter 
 addressed by Mr. R. O’Conor to the Roscommon Journal , 
 Dominick O’Conor Don is represented as a person of “ great 
 erudition,” who left a “ valuable collection of rare works,” 
 as a proof of his “ erudition and literary taste not a very 
 convincing proof that he and his estates became the victims 
 of a falsified pedigree. 
 
 An act of violence, said to have been committed on a 
 tombstone in Kilkeevain churchyard, in 1858, forms Mr. 
 O’Conor’s next strong point. The stone in question is 
 alleged to have been inscribed to the memory of the Clonalis 
 O’Connors, by Alexander O’Connor Don, and to have con- 
 tained the names of eleven members of that family, all 
 spelled with two n’s, and consequently to have been broken 
 by those who used the single n, as a penalty for its rude 
 contradiction. We might expect this subject to bring to 
 Mr. O’Conor’s remembrance painful recollections. Does he 
 calculate that the failure of his past efforts to procure faith 
 in an ill-devised calumny will be compensated for by 
 eventual success ? It is but a few months since he gathered 
 the first disreputable fruits of this attempt; he would have 
 acted with more prudence had he rested his hope of escaping 
 renewed censure, in not attracting renewed observation. 
 As he would have it believed that the O’Conors of Belana- 
 gare and Mount Druid had an interest in the disappearance 
 
35 
 
 of the tombstone, so, too, he would have the public accredit 
 them with the impiety by which it was accomplished. 
 Naturally forming his notions of the morality of others in 
 harmony with his own, he considers that better principles 
 must ever come off second best in a collision with self- 
 interest. Setting aside the consideration of the very pure 
 morality to which this argument appeals, let us follow it to 
 its application. We have already stated that the O’Conors 
 of Belanagare have not denied the use of the two n’s, and 
 were it otherwise, they could scarcely hope by the destruc- 
 tion of a single stone to conceal a fact evidenced by innu- 
 merable documents beyond their reach. Again, this stone 
 had never been erected ; it lay without, and not within the 
 churchyard, where it was never permitted to find a place; 
 and lastly, it was inscribed by that same Sandy O’Conor 
 who, according to our author, “ was not reputed to have 
 had too much sense,” and to whose statements “ little im- 
 portance was to be attributed.” Under these circumstances, 
 the O’Conors could have no interest in the destroying the 
 stone. It afforded no u rude contradiction,” whereas it 
 offered no contradiction at all ; besides that, it possessed no 
 greater genealogical authority than Mr. R. O’Conor might 
 again, with the aid of a chisel, communicate. 
 
 But this gentleman’s own interest in the “ act of impiety” 
 is a little more ascertainable. The stone in its integrity did 
 little for him, the broken fragments might be made to sup- 
 port a calumny ; and since, with his usual talent for discrimi- 
 nation, he gave but a part of the inscription on the tomb- 
 stone, in what purported to be an exact copy of it, it was 
 not unwise to withdraw 7 from public notice that he also sup- 
 pressed a part. We think his morality, coupled with his 
 interests, gave him the superior claim to the application of 
 his own argument. 
 
36 
 
 Though our author diversifies his ground of attack in his 
 method of executing it, we cannot fail to perceive an ad- 
 mirable consistency. His onslaught on the old and time- 
 honored name of Don displays less sense, and, if possible, 
 more contradiction than appeared in the most silly of his 
 past lucubrations. Such a farago of mere nonsense is 
 scarcely deserving of serious notice. The title is represented 
 by him as having been a factious symbol in the fourteenth 
 century, the subject of barter for a knighthood in the six- 
 teenth, invented in the eighteenth. At one time it is stated to 
 belong, of common right, to every member of the Ballintub- 
 ber family, at another to no member of that family ! Now, by 
 law of tanistry it is not descendible at all. Yet,* again, by 
 right of descent it belongs to the representative of the 
 Clonalis branch in the female line. It is asserted to have no 
 representative value or significance. Yet, a little later on, 
 Mr. O’Conor discovers “ it is better known than many a 
 peerage of the United Kingdom.” This is a specimen of 
 profound reasoning. Perhaps Mr. O’Conor thinks the title 
 represents too much, for he deplores it represents its pos- 
 sessor as the head of the Balintubber family. 
 
 We do not, however, rest our proofs of the antiquity of 
 the Don, or of the representative value it commands, on 
 this parcel of distempered contradictions. Long before 
 the reign of Elizabeth it marked the head of the O’Conor 
 family ; during the reign of that queen, in a treaty or 
 composition entered into by H. O’Conor Don with Lord 
 Deputy Perrot, we find him styled u H. O’Connor Don 
 of Ballintubber, Prince of the Plains of Connaught,” and 
 the original of this treaty is preserved in the public records. 
 On subsequently receiving the military order of knighthood, 
 he did not relinquish the title of Don. Henceforth we find 
 him styled Sir Hugh O’Conor Don. Subsequent to the 
 
37 
 
 death of Elizabeth, Hugh O’Conor Don obtained from 
 James I. a patent of his lands, wherein he is also styled “ Sir 
 Hugh O’Connor Don,” the Don being spelled as Dominick 
 O’Conor spelled it in the eighteenth century : a good cob 
 lateral proof that the latter “ invented” it. 
 
 The following extracts demonstrate the antiquity of this 
 title : — 
 
 “ 1576. The Lord Deputy, Sir Henry Sydney, in his despatch 
 to the Lords of the Council says, 1 During my abode at Eoscom- 
 mon, O’ Chonnor Donne came unto me, whose ancestor they say was 
 sometimes called kinge of Connaught. The castle of Eoscommon 
 I took from him in my former government, whose ancestors pre- 
 served the same, the continuance of 140 years, and never came 
 into Englishmen’s hands.’ ” — 1584, Parliament of Q. Elizabeth. 
 
 “ 1 Thither came the Siol Murray with the chiefs of their tribes, 
 namely, the son of O’Connor Don,” ( i.e . Hugh the son of Dermot, 
 afterwards Sir Hugh O’ Conor Don. This Hugh was father of 
 Charles Oge O’ Conor of Eelenagare). — See Letters and Mem . of 
 State , p. 125. 
 
 “ 1585. An indenture between Lord Deputy Perrot and Sir 
 Hugh O’Connor Don, in which it is agreed that the latter shall 
 hold the castle of Eallintubber, and all other castles and lands 
 belonging to the name and calling of O’Connor Donne, ‘ to him 
 and to his heirs by letters patent.’ ” — See the Record Office , 
 Custom House. 
 
 This does not look like a stipulation for the suppression 
 of the title Don. The holding of the castles and lands are 
 absolutely recited in the indenture to be holden as belong- 
 ing to the name and calling of O’Connor Donne. Sir John 
 Perrot not alone does not stipulate for the suppression 
 of the title, but bestows on it legal recognition and very 
 material representative value. Yet Mr. O’Conor has the 
 effrontery to state that Sir John Perrot stipulated for the 
 suppression of Dhuane, and conferred on Hugh O’Conor 
 the more honorable distinction of knighthood. 
 
 “ Borlese, in his history of Irish Eeb., 1642, in describing the 
 battle of Eallintubber fought in that year, writes — “ Sir Charles 
 
38 
 
 Coote encountered O’Connor Don of Ballintubber, titular Prince of 
 Connaught.” And again writes — “ The tacit votes of the Province 
 did seem to own O’Connor Don as their King, Prince, Roy, or 
 whatever name of supremacy in that province could be the 
 greatest.’ ” 
 
 Philip O’Sullivan Beare, in a list of Irish chieftains, mentions 
 “ O’Conor Don, Prince of the Maghera or plains of Connaught.” 
 
 The Abbe Mageoghegan has the following notice of the 
 O’ Conor Don family in his History of Ireland, vol ii. 
 p. 43: — 
 
 “ The descendants of this valiant Prince Cathal Crovderg never 
 took titles of honor from the kings of England, titles that the greater 
 part of the ancient Irish families then despised, and considered as 
 marks of servitude. The name of O’Connor Don, by which the 
 chief of the family was called, (as the other chiefs of great houses), 
 was considered much more glorious according to the genius and 
 and customs of the nation. The chief of the illustrious house of 
 O’Connor is at this day Daniel, son of Andrew O’Connor of Bal- 
 lintobber,* who still possesses in Connaught a small portion of the 
 vast possessions of his ancestors.” 
 
 The rules which have regulated the descent of this title 
 are sufficiently intelligible. When the lands, or remnant 
 of the lands to which it was originally annexed, became 
 holden after the English tenure, like them it became de- 
 scendable, and followed their limitations in the male line. 
 When estates are limited in tail male, daughters, and the 
 issue of daughters are excluded; and lands so limited, will 
 rather revert than leave the course marked out for them. 
 This was, and is, the usual mode of settlement adopted by 
 those who have sufficient family pride to induce them to 
 provide against family estates, or family dignities, passing 
 with a female to a stranger. Thus, many of the great 
 English estates and titles are rendered indescendible in the 
 female line. Thus, too, the Clonalis property was preserved 
 
 * Daniel O’Connor is here called of Ballintubber, because he was this time the 
 senior representative of the Ballintubber family, though he resided at Clonalis. 
 
39 
 
 by the wills of H. O’Conor Don and Dominick O’Conor 
 Don, so that the family estates and title, bound up with 
 the family name, might ever continue to descend. This 
 mode of descent is effected by a law neither more nor less 
 general than the law of England. It is sufficiently powerful 
 to create differences between the issue in the male line and 
 the issue in the female line, which are not, with Mr. 
 O’Cohor’s leave, “ sheer nonsense.” Mr. O’Conor’s sneers 
 at the title of Don may be very expressive, but they will 
 not wither away the object of his enmity. 
 
 We have at length arrived at Mr. O’Conor’s new theory 
 on the O’Conor family, and we must admit it exhibits mar- 
 vellous originality. In truth, if planning out schemes of 
 descent establishes them ; if the requirement of proof may be 
 satisfied by naming documents, to the exclusion of what they 
 contain; if a romantic preference of fiction to fact is proper 
 to the genealogist, never was there so great or so graceful 
 a hand at a pedigree. But as we have not received warning 
 to regard the subject of this review in the light of a historical 
 novel, we cannot afford it the licence due to works of the 
 imagination ; we are unwillingly compelled to subject it to 
 the rules of prosaic reality. 
 
 We shall, in the first instance, state Mr. R. O’Conor’s 
 assertions, that we may be enabled to realize the value of 
 the proofs on which they are made to depend. The pub- 
 lished pedigree of the O’Conors describes Charles O’Conor 
 as brother of Major Owen, and as having succeeded him in 
 the estates of Belanagare. Mr. O’ Conor, holding this to be 
 erroneous: asserts 1st, that Charles O'Connor never had any 
 interests in these lands; 2nd, that Anne and Bridget were the 
 daughters of Major Owen O’Connor, and inherited his pro- 
 perty, with the exception of a fourth, which had been for- 
 feited by Major Owen, and purchased by John French at 
 
40 
 
 Chichester House ; 3rd, that Anne and Bridget sold their 
 inheritance to the same J. French, who leased it to Denis 
 O’Conor, of Killintrany, in the county Sligo; 4th, that 
 John French devised it, subject to this lease, to his son 
 Robert, who conveyed it to Denis by deeds of lease and 
 re-lease ; and lastly, that Denis was protected in his posses- 
 sion by a friendly lease to Charles Hawkes, of Brierfield. 
 From all this Mr. O’Cohor concludes that the present 
 O’Conor pedigree is erroneous, and that the descendants of 
 Anne and Bridget are the only representatives of the old 
 O’Conors of Belanagare. It will be noticed that three docu- 
 ments are mentioned , as if in support of these statements, 
 the lease of J. French, the deed of lease and re-lease, and the 
 friendly lease to Charles Hawkes. The evidence we shall 
 employ against him will be chiefly derived from the contents 
 of the documents which he has mentioned. The first of 
 these we shall allude to, is the deed by John French to 
 Hawkes, of Brierfield, which is not a friendly lease , but a 
 deed of conveyance on trust. 
 
 In the recitals of this document, it is stated John French 
 is possessed of an undivided fourth of Belanagare and 
 Rathnanally, which he had purchased at Chichester House, 
 it having been forfeited, not by Major Owen O’Conor, but 
 by his brother Charles, to whom it is expressly stated to have 
 belonged.* 2ndly, it is stated that the remaining undivided 
 three-fourths are in the possession of Denis, Anne, and 
 Bridget, the children of Charles , as the estate of their uncle, 
 Major Owen; and then follow the operative words by which 
 
 * Record Tower, Dublin Castle. — One fourth part of the town and lands of 
 Belanagare aud Rathnanally, with one fourth of Com Mill, the estate of Charles 
 O’Connor, attainted. Enrolled June 23rd, 1703. 
 
 “At the Court, Chicester House, Denis O’Connor, with Peter Conry and Anne 
 Conry, alias O’Connor, and Bridget O’Connor, claimed and were allowed three 
 parts out of four of the real estates of Major Owen O’Connor, of Belanagare, under 
 his will , dated 8th of May, 1685.” 
 
41 
 
 John French grants the above-recited undivided one-fourth 
 to Charles Hawkes, to have, and to hold in trust, for his son 
 Robert French. So that Charles O’Conor was the brother of 
 Maj or Owen, and had an interest in Belan agare, and his children 
 took three-fourths of it as the estate of their uncle Major 
 Owen. And Anne and Bridget were not the daughters of 
 Major Owen, as Mr. O’Conor states, but his nieces, and 
 the daughters of Charles and the sisters of Denis; and John 
 French did not transmit Belanagare and Rathnanally to his 
 son Robert, but^the one undivided fourth which had been for- 
 feited by Charles O' Conor. This deed, quoted by himself, 
 his own unquestionable evidence, puts Mr. O’Conor’s truth- 
 fulness in rather an agreeable light. We suspect, had he 
 known in whose hands it lay, he would have been more cau- 
 tious in alluding to it. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor is not more fortunate in his attempt to help 
 out his views by the deeds of lease and re-lease of 1720. 
 He tells us that it is by this conveyance Robert French 
 conveyed Belanagare and Rathnanally to Denis O’Conor, 
 of Killentrany, county Sligo. His legal knowledge ought 
 to have saved him from this mistake. A lease and re-lease, 
 as the words indicate, consisted of two deeds, and served 
 as a conveyance of fee-simple property, by the joint opera- 
 tion of the statute of uses and the common law. The lease 
 was made, in the first instance, to put the lessee in such 
 a relation to the lessor as w^ould qualify him to receive 
 the re-lease. A re-lease operates as an enlargement of a 
 previous interest, and the previous lease was only neces- 
 sary in order to create such an interest. It will be re- 
 membered that the lands of Belanagare and Rathnanally were 
 stated by Mr. O’Conor to have been already leased by John 
 French to Denis O’Conor, and transmitted to his son 
 Robert, subject to that lease. If this statement were not 
 false, Denis O’Conor, being tenant of these lands to 
 
42 
 
 Robert French, the privity of estate required to a re-lease 
 already existed, and a new lease would have been, under 
 the circumstances, an absurdity. Robert French possessed 
 a reversionary interest in the lands, and the proper mode 
 of conveying it to the tenant in possession would be by a 
 simple re-lease. This is an intelligible argument, and by 
 itself sufficient to east discredit on Mr. O’Conor’s story of 
 John French’s lease to Denis O’Conor, of Belanagare and 
 Rathnanally. A simple re-lease was not used — a lease and 
 re-lease were executed, and Mr. O’Conor’s statement is false. 
 
 It only now remains to explain what actually is the 
 nature and object of that deed of lease and re-lease of 1720, 
 of which the memorial may be found in the registry office. 
 It is explained by the recitals to the deed made by John 
 French to Hawkes, of Brierfield. In these it is recited, 
 that John French possessed one undivided fourth of Belana- 
 gare and Rathnanally, and the children of Charles O’Conor 
 Denis and Bridget, undivided three-fourths. The deeds of 
 lease and re-lease are employed for the purposes of a 
 partition . Denis O’Conor conveys to Robert French his 
 interest in Rathnanally at a nominal rent of five shillings 
 per annum, as an equivalent for the one-fourth, and 
 French, at the same rent, conveys his interest in Belana- 
 gare to O’Conor at the same rent of 5s. per annum, as an 
 equivalent for the three-fourths. This is not all ; for this 
 Denis O’Conor, of Killintrany, county Sligo, whom Mr. 
 O’Conor asserts to have been no relation to Major Owen, 
 is stated in the covenants of the lease and re-lease to be 
 the nephew of Owen O’Conor, and Denis covenants to 
 secure French in Rathnanally against any one claiming 
 under his uncle Owen . This must have been Major Owen, 
 for as Rathnanally had just descended from him, it could 
 not be affected by claims derived under any other Owen. 
 
43 
 
 When we consider that the memorial of these deeds is 
 preserved in the registry office, and accessible to every 
 inquiry, we cannot but feel struck by the barefaced impu- 
 dence which sought to make them appear exactly the oppo- 
 site to what they are. The lesson, however, has its advantage. 
 Detected fraud is so much head made against dishonesty ; 
 and by such experience we but learn to guard against its 
 artifices and its boldness. 
 
 Major Owen O’Conor’s will was for some] time lost. 
 Pending its appearance, his daughters, Mary and Eliner, 
 held the lands of Belanagare and Rathnanally by right of 
 descent, and had dealings with the Frenchs, of French Park, 
 in which these lands were concerned. On the discovery of 
 the will, it was found that while these lands were charged 
 in favor of the wife and children of Major Owen, they 
 were devised to go to his brother, Charles, and his chil- 
 dren ; and 
 
 “ At the Court of Chichester House, Denis O’Connor, with 
 Peter Conay, and Anne Conry, alias O’Connor, his wife, and 
 Bridget O’Connor, claimed, and were allowed three parts out of 
 four of the real estates of Major Owen O’Connor, of Belanagare, 
 (the other fourth had been forfeited), under his will of the 8th 
 of May, 1465.” 
 
 But Mr. Roderick O’Conor, the accurate antiquary and 
 genealogist, holds an opinion, touching these matters, adverse 
 to the public records. He does not believe that Charles 
 was the brother of Major Owen, or Denis his nephew, or 
 that Denis derived his right to Belanagare through Charles 
 O’Conor, his father, from Major Owen, his uncle, under 
 Major Owen’s will; but he does hold that Anne and 
 Bridget were the daughters of Major Owen, and, as such, 
 co-heiresses of the lands of Belanagare. In other words, 
 the records and public documents are forged, and Major 
 Owen’s will is forged, and the Court of Claims was hum- 
 
44 
 
 bugged ; and nearly two centuries after, Mr. O’Conor says 
 he sees through the cheat— assures us it was a cheat; and, 
 for the honor and glory of the Miltown family, asks the 
 world to believe it to have been a cheat. 
 
 Mr. O’Cohor’s closing proof is amusing. Having pre- 
 viously taken a world of pains to show that the new Bela- 
 nagare family form no part of the old Belanagare family, 
 but that the latter family is represented by the descendants 
 of the daughters of Major Owen, he establishes this by 
 referring to an ejectment trial, in which he states it was 
 proved that Mr. Corr, of Durham, the descendant of Anne 
 O’Conor, was a relative of a member of the new O’Conor 
 family; that is to say, the Corrs represent the old O’Conors, 
 to the exclusion of the present Belanagare family, because 
 they have been proved to be relatives of the latter. We 
 take this to be about the worst argument imaginable. 
 
 The last fact which this accurate historian puts forward 
 on unquestionable authority admirably consorts with the 
 last argument. Denis O’Conor is represented to have de- 
 clared before the Irish House of Commons, in 1777, that he 
 brought his voters to poll, at his own expense, for Mr. 
 French, as a tribute of gratitude for having saved his family 
 from the loy. As Denis O’Conor’s tenants were Roman 
 Catholics, and as Catholics had not yet been admittted to 
 the franchise, we must acknowledge that our faith is a 
 little too hard pressed by our historian. We cannot, how- 
 ever, pass by this subject without expressing our indignation 
 that this miserable author of countless absurdities should 
 dare to trifle with the name of the illustrious Charles O’Conor. 
 Had the injustice and intolerance of the period launched its 
 last arrow at the house of Belanagare, were the remaining 
 ties once broken which bound Charles O’Conor to his ill- 
 fated country, “ the loy ’ would not have been his resource; 
 
45 
 
 he would but have been set free from the paralysing influ- 
 ence of those penal enactments, which, as a weight of lead, 
 were set upon the talents and energies of his class. Speak- 
 ing of this period, Mr. Macaulay remarks, “ There were 
 indeed Irish Roman Catholics of great ability, energy, and 
 ambition; but they were to be found everywhere but in 
 Ireland. At Versailles, at St. Ildefonso, in the armies of 
 Frederic, and in the armies of Maria Teresa. One exile be- 
 came a marshal of France, another prime minister of Spain. 
 If he had remained at home in his native land, he would 
 have been regarded as an inferior by all the ignorant 
 squireens who had signed the declaration against Transub- 
 stantiation .” — History of England. 
 
 Charles O’Conor did remain at home, and in our days 
 also there are “ ignorant squireens ” to meddle with his 
 memory. He remained at home because he had the honor 
 and the good of his country at heart, because he would aid 
 in alleviating the sufferings of his countrymen, or share in 
 them; he remained to keep alive the fast-failing light of 
 national literature, and history, and feeling. I have 
 broke,” he writes, “ that silence which our people have kept 
 so uninterruptedly for nearly twenty years. I have the honor 
 of my country at heart; am I not anxious in vain?” Nor 
 where his services nor his talents unfelt or unfruitful. In 
 his own age, and in our own age, at home and abroad, men 
 of learning and of worth paid him the tribute of their esteem 
 and admiration. Lightly and harmlessly will the squireens 
 sneer rest upon him whom Dr. Johnson was proud to call 
 his friend, and of whom Lyttleton speaks in his history in 
 the following eulogistic terms. “ Charles O’Conor of Belan- 
 agare, who, with the noble blood which flows in his veins, 
 has naturally inherited a passionate love for the honor of his 
 country, and therefore willingly assists in any undertaking 
 
46 
 
 that may make the history of it more known and more 
 complete.” 
 
 It is not surprising that a gentleman who reasons so 
 closely, and who is such a hand at “ facts,” should require 
 to see things very clearly before he would commit himself 
 to their belief. Mr. O’Conor does not see clearly what 
 interest Owen O’Conor had in Belanagare, and whether that 
 estate ever came from Sir Hugh O’Conor Don, and in grati- 
 tude to one who has written so much for our benefit, we 
 ought to be equally short-sighted. Indeed, were it not for 
 the patent of Frenchpark, and still more for the three notes 
 of admiration, though we might not succeed in puzzling our- 
 selves into his intellectual doubts, we would have left him to 
 their placid enjoyment. These are, however, too much for 
 our philosophy. As we cannot soften down the marks of ad- 
 miration, we shall do something towards removing the diffi- 
 culties raised by the patent. This patent, granted in the 
 time of queen Anne, gave no new lands to the family of 
 Frenchpark, but constituted those already held by them 
 into a manor. At this period they still held the undivided 
 fourth of Belanagare and Rathnanally, which had been for- 
 feited by Charles O’Conor, and it is thus these denominations 
 found their way into the patent. 
 
 The statement that Clonalis formed no part of Sir Hugh 
 O’Conor’s estates is untrue, and we defy Mr. O’Conor to 
 verify it. The grant from Charles II. so far from establish- 
 ing it, fairly implies the contrary. It is well known that 
 the oldest estates were then re-settled. And, in truth, a grant 
 of lands to a Catholic family at the restoration is sufficiently 
 significant of their having previously belonged to that 
 family. Charles’s sympathies were never unnecessarily 
 generous towards the Irish papist. Besides, it is included 
 under one of the larger denominations mentioned in the 
 
47 
 
 grant to Sir Hugh O’Conor Don, being too trifling to get a 
 separate mention amid the possessions of the “ Prince of the 
 plains of Connaught.* 
 
 We have now done with Mr. O’Conor’s scheme of re- 
 
 I 
 
 venge. It was badly conceived and badly executed ; mis- 
 statements of facts keep in attendance on misapplication of 
 argument, and unproved assertion go hand in hand with 
 inconclusive reasoning. He set out with a notice likely to 
 lead him astray, presuming on what he calls “ the extreme 
 gullibility of the Irish.” He writes in conformity with the 
 presumption. His countrymen are indebted to him for this 
 flattering appreciation of their character. If he meant to 
 deceive them, he at least gave them and the world to un- 
 derstand how deceivable they were. Few writers preface 
 a cheat with equal sincerity. Perhaps Mr. O’Conor is mis- 
 taken in his estimate of those for whom he wrote. They 
 may be able to reach a fraud which lies not far beneath the 
 surface, in which case “ the unpretending little work” may 
 not suit its purpose, as its author humbly hopes for it. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor states “ we all know and feel the advantages 
 we derive from our union with England and ambition to 
 become what he calls “ a real portion” of that great and 
 glorious empire ; perhaps he is as consistent in thinking, 
 we also know and feel the utility of sweeping away the 
 names, traditions, and memories of the old Irish families 
 who yet survive the advantages of this same union. Let 
 those who think as he does lend him their faith and benefit 
 themselves, according to this notion, without investigation. 
 The people of Ireland stand not yet on that lowest step of 
 slavery ; they have not yet learned to love their chains and 
 
 * Both Belanagare and Castlerea are expressly mentioned in the patent of 
 lands granted to Sir Hugh O’Conor Don. The original patent is in the pos- 
 session of the present O’Conor Don. 
 
48 
 
 bepraise their bondage. The love of their 'ancient chiefs 
 still bide with them ; nor are they prepared to surrender it 
 at the bidding of one to their faith and to tbeir sympathies 
 a stranger. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor cannot mend his folly ; he may be tempted 
 to repeat it, and it may encourage him to remember that he 
 has precluded himself from no conceivable variety of opinion 
 or of argument. In fact, he has committed himself neither 
 to truth or to consistency. From the start he gave each to 
 understand he would be free of their control, and through- 
 out he has manfully maintained his independence. We bid 
 him to go on and prosper, reminding him that his character 
 for originality is worth preserving, in order that if he do not 
 instruct he may continue to amuse his readers. With regard 
 to his style, he would do well to avoid adding to its per- 
 spicuity. In those days of enigmas and conundrums, an occa- 
 sional puzzle cannot fail of being popular, especially when it 
 is presented by so well-intentioned a writer ; and in any 
 case it will afford a capital exercise to the rebels who seek 
 to deprive syntax of its legitimate rule. 
 
We are happy to be able to inform our readers that our 
 predictions of another change in Mr. Roderick O’Cohor’s 
 genealogical theories have been already realized, too lately, 
 however, for a more- lengthened notice from us at present. 
 He attempts to explain this latest departure from his 
 former views by stating they were erroneously assumed; 
 and when he again publishes we shall find him acknow- 
 ledging those he now puts forward to have been “ erroneous 
 assumptions.” “ Quern Deus vult perdere prius dementat.” 
 
 As, in the production we have hitherto been examining, 
 he assumed that Denis O’Conor was not the son of Charles, 
 or nephew of Owen; and that Anne and Bridget were the 
 daughters of Major Owen, and not the daughters of Charles, 
 and sisters of Denis; so now he is convinced, and wishes 
 to share his convictions w T ith others, that this Major Owen 
 was not the grandson of Sir Hugh O’Conor Don, through 
 Charles, the third son of Sir Hugh. 
 
 The gist of Mr. O’Cohor’s argument appears to be, that 
 Sir Hugh had no third son of that name. That Charles 
 was his eldest son, otherwise called Calvach, an epithet 
 signifying “eldest son;” but that the genealogists of the 
 family of Belanagare slipped in a second Charles to connect 
 themselves with Sir Hugh, and protected their fraud by 
 giving the eldest son the name of Calvach, in the pedigree, 
 to avoid the absurdity of the two sons bearing the same 
 name. 
 
 In support of this argument Mr. O’Conor states that Sir 
 Hugh O’Conor Don possessed no interest in Belanagare. 
 
 Trusting that one so ready to impart information is not 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 unwilling to receive it, we take the liberty of supplying 
 him with some on these heads. 
 
 “ Calvach O’Connor Don, son and heir of Sir Hugh 
 O’Connor, of Ballintubber,” executed a deed of conveyance 
 to his youngest brother Charles , of the lands of Belanagare, 
 Raherdiveen, and Rathnanally ; and states “ that he makes 
 this deed in strict conformity with, and confirmatory of one 
 previously made by Sir Hugh to said Charles.” The 
 original deed from which this is written is preserved. If 
 Calvach had no younger brother Charles, how comes it 
 that a mythical character , this fiction of the Belanagare 
 genealogists , is made party to a deed, and grantee of lands, 
 of which Calvach is grantor? And if Sir Hugh possessed 
 no interest in Belanagare, how are we to explain this con- 
 veyance of it by his heir, in conformity to a previous one 
 made by Sir Hugh himself? And we are also at a loss to 
 understand how the royal patent of lands made to Sir Hugh 
 contains Belanagare as well as Castlerea. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor’s discoveries have been governed by a strange 
 law. Each came but to oust its predecessor, and to build 
 up its own speculations on the ruins of those which went 
 before. Meanwhile their author, sunning himself in “ the 
 light of the last,” hastens, like the fire-god of Iran, to dis- 
 pense to his followers its earliest rays. But after a little 
 the light turns out to be no light, or a false light. Forth- 
 with it is countermanded ; and then follows a new issue of 
 new enlightenment, more original perhaps, but not to be 
 more lasting. 
 

 

 
M'BERMOTS OF MOYLURG. 
 
 Our author’s notice of the M 4 Dermots of Moylurg is very 
 brief, indeed, but, no doubt, intended to be very expressive. 
 It purports to be a quotation from Dr. O’Donovan, accom- 
 panied by an allusion to the source whence he derived his 
 information. The descendants of the MacDermots of Moy- 
 lurg do not quarrel with the statement which disallows the 
 title of “ Prince of Coolavin,” in whatever light they may 
 regard the language in which it is couched. They claim 
 for the title borne by the head of the sept a higher anti- 
 quity than the more modern possession of Coolavin by the 
 M‘Dermots; nor have they ever sought to exchange the 
 title of “ Prince of Moylurg” for another and less ancient 
 one. When Moylurg followed the fate of nine-tenths of 
 the properties of Ireland — when all belonging to it was 
 lost, except the right to it, and the royal patents by which 
 that right had been confirmed — though the title of “ Prince” 
 remained unchanged, handed down from father to son 
 without an instant’s abeyance, noticed and recognized by 
 Irish scholars and writers, yet, to mark the later residence 
 of those entitled to bear it, the distinct phrase of “ Coolavin” 
 was popularly appended to it. To mention both Moylurg 
 and Coolavin would have been rather a cumbrous form of 
 speech. 
 
 F 
 

 4