more imminent, he was urged by his Protestant neighbours to fly for refuge to the adjacent garrison-town of New Ross: but he and his wife thought it right to remain at their own residence.

He was taken prisoner, soon after, with his elder brother John, and conveyed to the mansion of F. King, of Scullabogue, his wife accompanying them. John lamented his situation and former manner of life, signifying that he was ill prepared to die; but Samuel encouraged him by repeating the declaration of our Saviour, "" He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."

The house where they were imprisoned was close to the noted barn, in which, within a few days after they were taken, a number of their fellow-creatures were horribly burnt to death.* Like many others confined there, they had little to eat; and his wife, having procured a loaf of bread, brought it to him: but being more inclined to sleep than to eat, he placed it under his head, intending to reserve it till he awoke; and whilst he slept, it was conveyed away. When he awoke, and his wife was lamenting the loss of it at such a time of need, he patiently answered her, "God who has permitted the food to be taken away, can likewise take away hunger." But afterwards, as he was walking about the room, his foot struck against a plate of potatoes, which lay concealed under some clothes, and, though cold, to them they were delicious. A New Testament, which they had with them, afforded them much comfort. On the morning of the day when the barn was set on fire-which was also the day of the battle of Ross, -as they were reading in the New Testament, Samuel's wife inquired of one of their guards the cause of the peculiar smell, like burning animal matter, which she perceived He told her it proceeded from some beef steaks they were preparing

* The following fact is supposed to indicate that the massacre of the Protestants at Scullabogue, to the number of two hundred and upwards, by burning some in the barn, and shooting others in the lawn, was not the effect of a sudden impulse, but of a preconcerted plan, to which even some of the Protestant generals of the rebels were not privy: two days before the massacre, a member of the Society, of Scar, whose son was either taken, or went with the United Irishmen, to their camp, apprehending that he had influence with one of their generals, B. B. Harvey (himself a Protestant) to get off his son, repaired to Scullabogue and spoke to the General. But the power of the latter being in some things merely nominal, he directed him to go to the priest, whose name was Roche, saying "He could do nothing for him." Not being satisfied to do so, the Friend returned home. But whilst he was waiting for the General, he saw the two brothers Jones in the house; and as he was attempting to go into the room where they were confined, he was pulled suddenly back by a man named Fitzhenry, wh told him, that "if he went into that room, he would never come out alive.”

for breakfast! To a further inquiry she made, "what was meant by the firing of guns?" he replied, "Tis some criminals we are shooting." "And will they shoot us?" said the poor woman. "Oh! may be they will spare you till the last," was his answer.

In about five minutes after this, the three were taken out.

The Rebel officer who commanded there, had been reminded by Samuel of their having been school-fellows; and the latter had given him his watch and money to keep for him: it is even stated that the officer slept in the same bed with him part of the previous night. Having proposed to Samuel that he should conform and turn to the Roman Catholic profession, he replied, "Where shall I turn, but where my God is ?" And, when he was urged to have his children sprinkled, he said, "My children are innocent, and I will leave them so."

When the two brothers, with Samuel's wife, were brought out to the lawn in front of the dwelling-house where they were imprisoned, to be put to death, some person said, "They were Quakers." It was replied, that "if they could make it appear they were Quakers, they should not be killed." As they were not in reality members of the Society, this was not attempted to be done. Those who had them in custody then took Samuel aside, and on certain conditions offered him his life; but, whatever was the nature of these conditions, he firmly rejected them; and when the holy water, as they termed it, was brought to them, he turned his back upon it.

The Insurgents then shot his elder brother, whom he very much encouraged, fearing his steadfastness might give way-for John had shown a disposition to turn Roman Catholic if it might be the means of saving Samuel's life; but the latter encouraged his brother to faithfulness, expressing the words of our blessed Saviour, "They that deny me before men, them will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven;" and he again revived the 39th verse of the same chapter in his remembrance. See Matthew, chap. x.

Samuel then desired his love to be given to different Friends, whom he named,-some of the Rebels, at the same time, with a view to depress his spirits, telling him, that these Friends had been made prisoners before he was, and shot at the camp at the Three Rocks. This communication had partially the effect they intended; he meekly replied, "They died innocent." He then took an

affectionate farewell of his wife, who, with admirable fortitude, stood between the two brothers, holding a hand of each, when they were shot and his last words were reported to be those expressions of our Lord and Saviour, which he repeated for the third time in the hearing of his murderers, "He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that 'oseth his life for my sake shall find it." It was cause of mournful reflection to his friends that he was fired at three times before his death took place. He was an innocent young man, much beloved by his neighbours.

It seemed as if his wife would have shared the same fate, had not the officer who commanded interposed in her favour. She was permitted to convey their bodies to their former dwelling on a car; but not being able at that time to procure coffins for them, she buried them in the garden. On the death of their aged father, which took place in the following month, and was probably hastened by the untimely death of his two only sons, the bodies of the three were taken to the burying-ground of the Friends at Forrest, and there interred about seven weeks after.

When similar events occur under nearly similar circumstances, in different ages, and in different countries, we are in the habit of referring them, and mostly with good reason, to the influence and operation of some common principles. We judge that, whatever difference may exist between the customs and prejudices of one age and country and those of another, these customs and prejudices have not the power to counterbalance the practical weight and authority of the principles in question. But if we find that these principles influence the conduct of our fellow-creatures, even when they are living in a state of uncultivated nature, we must be persuaded, that whatever motives operate so powerfully, in rude and civilized society, must be built upon some enduring foundation, which times and seasons cannot alter. If, besides this, we discover that, in their direct effect, these principles lead to the welfare and happiness of man, the conclusion is irresistible, that they are not of mere temporary use, but of universal obligation; and that it is the duty of every individual, as well as of political bodies, to conform to them, and thus to make them the rule of public and private conduct. Now such, it may be safely alleged, are the blessed effects of the principles

of Peace, when, in a right spirit, they are acted upon and obeyed,— and such their influence upon mankind, without restriction to heathens or Christians, to individuals or nations. For whatever individual manifestly declares and proves himself a lover and maker of Peace, is enabled to live comparatively at peace, and is respected: and whatever nation holds up the same standard, and conforms to the same rule, taking no undue advantage, but acting in good faith towards others, will never fail to impress the world with esteem and admiration, and to hold mankind in awe by its very virtues. This is neither a new nor hypothetical ground of reasoning; it is confirmed by what is called profane, as well as by sacred history.

The preceding reflections have arisen upon comparing the state of the Society of Friends, both at the time of the first settlement in Pennsylvania and afterwards, and the exceptions that occurred in the latter case, with the circumstances and the exception which are stated above to have taken place in Ireland.

It is well known that the peaceful founder of Pennsylvania established himself securely in that country, at a time when the name of a European was almost hateful to the Aborigines, on account of the perfidy and cruelty which the former had manifested. No other reason for the opposite treatment he received, could be assigned but this, that he adopted a different line of policy. By his peaceable attitude he disarmed their violence; and by his sincerity he gained their esteem. His towns, without either garrison or fortress, were protected; at least, were free from assault. And peace was maintained, not only with the Indian neighbours, but with the more dangerous Europeans, as long as the councils of Pennsylvania were directed by peaceable men. When at last this State assumed a warlike character, it was assailed like the rest, and experienced the calamities of war.

It appears also, that, during the conflict between the Anglo-Americans and the Indian natives, so long as the members of the Society remained unarmed, they escaped without injury; but when they took up arms, or fled to garrison-towns for protection, and happened to fall in the way of the Indians, they lost their lives.

When arms were seen in the hands of those, who were looked upon as men of Peace, they excited the distrust of the warlike Indian. The weapon of defence (it might only be named) to him who bore it, was

an object of offence to him who saw it; because it conveyed the notion of hostility, and carried the idea of a spirit capable of revenge. When this appeared, the character of the peaceful Christian was lost, and with it one of the best defences with which a human being could be guarded.

A Friend, named Thomas Chalkley, who was travelling in New England in the year 1704, informs us, that "About this time the Indians were very barbarous in the destruction of the English inhabitants, scalping some, and knocking out the brains of others, men, women, and children, by which the country was greatly alarmed both by night and day; but the great Lord of all was pleased wonderfully to preserve our Friends, especially those who kept faithful to their peaceable principle, according to the doctrine of Christ in the Holy Scriptures, as recorded in his excellent sermon, which he preached on the mount."

Among the many hundreds that were slain, he heard but of three Friends being killed: and, according to the information he received, their destruction was very remarkable: the one was a woman, the other two were men.

"The men," he informs us, "used to go to labour without any weapons, and trusted to the Almighty, and depended on his providence to protect them (it being their principle not to use weapons of war to offend others, or defend themselves;) but a spirit of distrust taking place in their minds, they took weapons of war to defend themselves; and the Indians, who had seen them several times without them, and let them alone, saying, They were peaceable men, and hurt nobody, therefore they would not hurt them,'-now seeing them have guns, and supposing they designed to kill the Indians, they therefore shot the men dead.

"The woman had remained in her habitation, and could not be free to go to a fortified place for preservation—neither she, her son, nor daughter-nor to take thither the little ones; but the poor woman after some time began to let in a slavish fear, and did advise her children to go with her to a fort not far from their dwelling. Her daughter being one that trusted in the name of the Lord, the mighty tower to which the righteous flee and find safety, could not consent to go with her."

The daughter testifies concerning her mother, that the latter did