14 
part of the inscription, and whether the names are not really 
man3, mur, man3, The great injuries which the painting 
has received render it not impossible, notwithstanding Mr. 
Curry’s usual accuracy, that he may have mistaken the latter 
word, especially as it appears from his letter that this part of 
the inscription was read for him by the less experienced eye 
of his son. 
On the death of Manus, we are told by the annalists that 
Aodh, son of Eogan O’Connor, was made king by the in- 
fluence of the English Lord Justice or Viceroy, and was 
maintained in his place by the English interest for many 
years, and amidst various contests and vicissitudes. At one 
time he was taken prisoner by Fitzgerald, and Cathal Roe 
O’Conor took the kingdom; but three months afterwards 
Cathal was murdered by a near relative, and Aodh returned 
to power. In 1296, however, we find that Aodh, who had 
hitherto relied on English support, was deposed by his own 
tribe, and the Clan Murtough brought in to fill the throne 
in his place, in the person of Conor Roe, son of Cathal 
O’Conor. If the correct reading of the inscription, there- 
fore, be Manus, Muirchertach, Muirchertach, as Mr. Curry 
gives it, it is not impossible that the second Muirchertach 
may be intended to stand for this new dynasty of the Clan, 
Murtogh, which derived its name from Muircheartach Muimh- 
neach O’Conor, who died in 1210, and was the son of the 
celebrated Turlogh Mor O’Conor, King of Ireland from 
a.p.1106 to 1156. The Clan Murtogh, however, continued 
but a short time in power: their necessities probably led 
them to pillage the churches and to seize upon the property 
of the laity. They lost their popularity, and Aodh was 
restored by the aid of the English and of the Burkes,— 
‘‘God, the Virgin Mary, and Columbkille,” say the Four 
Masters, ‘‘having taken vengeance on the Clan Murtogh 
for despoiling the churches:” and thus Aodh continued in 
power, and this time apparently with the consent of his tribe, 
