Most fatal, most unjust policy!  Had it been devised for the express purpose of imbittering the feelings of the Irish Celt eternally against the Saxon ruler, it could not have succeeded more effectually.  The laws of Draco were figuratively said to have been written in blood:  how many bloody deeds, at which men have stood aghast in horror and dismay, were virtually enacted by the Statute of Kilkenny?  The country-loving, generous-hearted Celt, who heard it read for the first time, must have been more or less than human, if he did not utter “curses, not loud, but deep,” against the framers of such inhuman decrees.  If Englishmen studied the history of Ireland carefully, and the character of the Celtic race, they would be less surprised at Irish discontent and disloyalty.  An English writer on Irish history admits, that while “there is no room to doubt the wisdom of the policy which sought to prevent the English baron from sinking into the unenviable state of the persecuted Irish chieftain, still less is there an apology to be offered for the iniquity of the attempt to shut the great mass of the Irish people out from the pale of law, civilization, and religion.  The cruelty of conquest never broached a principle more criminal, unsound, or unsuccessful."[356] It is to be regretted that a more recent and really liberal writer should have attempted this apology, which his own countryman and namesake pronounced impossible.  The author to whom we allude grants “it sounds shocking that the killing of an Irishman by an Englishman should have been no felony;” but he excuses it by stating, “nothing more is implied than that the Irish were not under English jurisdiction, but under the native or Brehon law."[357] Unfortunately this assertion is purely gratuitous.  It was made treason by this very same statute even to submit to the Brehon law; and the writer himself states that, in the reign of Edward I., “a large body of the Irish petitioned for the English law, and offered 8,000 marks as a fee for that favour."[358] He states that an Irishman who murdered an Englishman, would only have been fined by his Brehon.  True, no doubt; but if an Englishman killed an Irishman, he escaped scot-free.  If, however, the Irishman was captured by the Englishman, he was executed according to the English law.  If a regulation had been made that the Englishman should always be punished for his crimes by English law, and the Irishman by Irish law,[359] and if this arrangement had been carried out with even moderate impartiality, it would have been a fair adjustment, however anomalous.

A little episode of domestic life, narrated by Froissart, is a sufficient proof that the social state of the Irish was neither so wild nor so barbarous as many have supposed; and that even a Frenchman might become so attached to the country as to leave it with regret, though, at the same time, it was not a little difficult to find an English Viceroy who would face the political complications which the Statute of Kilkenny had made