Page:Foras feasa ar Éirinn - Keating; Comyn, Dinneen.djvu/47

Rh war between King Arthur and Muircheartach, son of Earc, king of Ireland, so that they were accustomed to aid each other whenever an attack was made on either of them, it must not be thence inferred that either was tributary to the other. The truth of this matter is still more to be understood from what (William of) Newbury says in the twenty-sixth chapter of the second book of his history, where he speaks of Ireland: here is what he says—"Ireland never lay under foreign dominion." Cambrensis himself corroborates this matter in his twenty-sixth chapter, where he says:—"From the first, Ireland has remained free from the invasion of any foreign nation." From these words it is evident that neither Arthur, nor any other foreign potentate, ever had supremacy over Ireland from the beginning till the Norman invasion: and, moreover, it is not conceivable that the Britons had any control over Ireland, since even the Romans did not venture to meddle with it, and it is not alone that the Romans, or other foreigners, had no control over Ireland, but it is Ireland that was a refuge to the other territories to protect them from the violence of the Romans and other foreigners.

Here we may see how Camden corroborates this in the book called Camden's 'Britannia,' where he says:—"When the Romans had widely extended their dominion, there came, without doubt, many hither (speaking of Ireland) from Spain, from France, and from Britain, in order to extricate their necks from the most grievous yoke of the Romans." From this it may be understood that it is not alone that the Romans did not come to Ireland, but even that it is there the people

5., C., C;, H; , al.7. , F.