to it, and its very adversaries are an instrument in its hands.

"The party I speak of (like some amongst us who would disparage
the best friends of their country) resolved to make the King
either violate his principles of toleration, or incur the odium
of protecting Papists. They, therefore, brought in this bill,
and made it purposely wicked and absurd, that it might be
rejected. The then court-party discovering their game, turned
the tables on them, and returned their bill to them stuffed
with still greater absurdities, that its loss might lie upon
its original authors. They, finding their own ball thrown back
to them, kicked it back again to their adversaries. And thus
this act, loaded with the double injustice of two parties,
neither of whom intended to pass what they hoped the other
would be persuaded to reject, went through the legislature,
contrary to the real wish of all parts of it, and of all the
parties that composed it. In this manner these insolent and
profligate factions, as if they were playing with balls and
counters, made a sport of the fortunes and the liberties of
their fellow-creatures. Other acts of persecution have been
acts of malice. This was a subversion of justice from
wantonness."

Whether Dr Arnold's theory be applicable or not to this particular case,
it furnishes but too just a solution of Irish misgovernment in general.
It is, that excessive severity toward conquered rebels, is by no means
inconsistent with the principles of free government, or even with the
triumph of a democracy. The truth of this fact is extorted from us by
all history, and may be accounted for first, by the circumstance, that
large bodies of men are less affected than individuals, by the feelings