.dt Studies in Irish History, 1603-1649, by R. Barry O'Brien\
A Project Gutenberg eBook

.de body {width:80%; margin:auto;}

// max line length
.ll 72

// Transcriber's notes in a nice box.
.de .tnbox {background-color:#E3E4FA;border:1px solid silver;padding: 0.5em;margin:2em 10% 0 10%; }

// default indentation for .nf l blocks
.nr nfl 4

// Page numbering
.pn on // turn off visible page numbers
// .pn link // turn on page number links

// paragraph formatting, indent paragraphs by 1.0 em.
.nr psi 1.0em
.pi

// chapter head
.dm ch-head-start
.sp 1
.fs 85%
.in +4
.dm-

.dm ch-head-end
.in -4
.fs 100%
.sp 2
.dm-

// letter
.dm letter-start
.sp 1
.fs 85%
.in +4
.dm-

.dm letter-end
.in -4
.fs 100%
.sp 1
.dm-

// footnote
.dm fn-start
.ni
.fs 85%
.fn #
.dm-

.dm fn-end
.fn-
.fs 100%
.pi
.dm-

// verse
.dm verse-start
.sp 1
.in +1
.fs 85%
.nf b
.dm-

.dm verse-end
.nf-
.fs 100%
.in -1
.sp 1
.dm-

// Transcriber’s notes in a nice box.
.de .tnbox {background-color:#E3E4FA;border:1px solid silver;padding: 0.5em;margin:2em 10% 0 10%; }

// include a cover image in HTML only
.if h
.il fn=cover.jpg w=600px
.pb
.if-
.sp 4
.bn 001.png
.pn 1
.h1
<xxl>Studies in Irish History,</xxl>|<xl>1603-1649</xl>
.sp 2
.nf c
<B><I>Being a Course of Lectures
Delivered before the Irish Literary Society of London</I></B>


<s>EDITED BY</s>

R. BARRY O’BRIEN


<I>SECOND SERIES</I>


BROWNE AND NOLAN, LIMITED
<I>DUBLIN, BELFAST & CORK</I>

<l><sc>London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd.</sc>
<sc>Stationers’ Hall Court, E.C.</sc></l>
1906
.nf-
.bn 002.png
.pn +1
.bn 003.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.pb
.sp 4
.h2
Contents
.sp 2
.ta l:40 r:4
 | <s>PAGE</s>
<l>THE PLANTATION OF ULSTER</l>  |    1
\_\_<sc>The Rev. S. A. COX</sc>, M.A.    |
 |
 |
<l>STRAFFORD</l>                 |
\_\_\_\_<sc>Part I.—The Graces</sc>          |  69
\_\_\_\_<sc>Part II.—The Eve of “1641”</sc>    |      137
\_\_PHILIP WILSON, M.A. |
 |
 |
<l>“1641”</l>      |   169
\_\_ARTHUR HOUSTON, K.C., LL.D. |
 |
 |
<l>THE CONFEDERATION OF KILKENNY</l>    |      225
\_\_<sc>Dr. DONELAN</sc>, M.CH., M.B. |
.ta-
.bn 004.png
.pn +1
.bn 005.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.pb
.sp 4
.nf c
<xxl>THE PLANTATION OF ULSTER</xxl>

<xl><sc>By the</sc> REVEREND S. A. COX, M.A., T.C.D.</xl>
.nf-
.bn 006.png
.pn +1
.bn 007.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.pb
.sp 4
.h2
The Plantation of Ulster
.pm ch-head-start
“The truth is, they that gape after poor Irishmen’s lands
do what they can to have a colour to beg them”—(<i>State
Papers</i>, <i>Ireland</i>, 1610, p. 415).
.pm ch-head-end

<sc>These</sc> words were written in an appeal for
justice, or even the formality of a trial, by one
who was betrayed by the English whom he had
served. Sir Donnell O’Cahan had left his own
people to seek an English alliance, and was
rewarded by an imprisonment of nineteen years,
without ever being brought up for trial. He
was goaded into a just indignation by rumours
that reached him in the early days of his imprisonment
in Dublin, of Lady O’Cahan’s destitution
and insanity, but after a couple of years
he was moved to the Tower of London, where
he, and other noblemen who were confined
because men hungered after their lands, languished
away till death gave them release. It
will not surprise most of our readers to know
that his letters were intercepted and carefully
.bn 008.png
.pn +1
studied with a view to finding something treasonable
in them. Truly Ireland’s share in the privileges
of Magna Carta has been a small one.

The opening of James I’s reign in Ireland
was auspicious enough. The battle of Kinsale
was an effort of an United Ireland, aided by
Spanish troops, to meet and expel the English
in the battle-field: it failed, and with it came
to an end the hopes of the great Irish lords to
do anything by open warfare. James found
Ireland decimated by war and famine: some
parts like the Ards in the County Down had
been literally cleared of their inhabitants.[#] The
chiefs were willing enough to submit, if submission
meant that they were to become great
Palatine lords, with no interference from the
Crown in their relations with their vassals, or
in the exercise of their religion. The once turbulent
Anglo-Irish lords had nearly all conformed
to the Protestant religion, and become
loyal. The people, with the gaunt figures of
famine and desolation that they remembered
so well, would have been glad to have peace,
if not “at any price,” at any rate at any price
that might allow them to remain in their own
land and worship as their fathers had done. By
his descent James had claims upon the loyalty
of the Irish that could not have been urged for
.bn 009.png
.pn +1
the Tudor line. And it looked at first as if a
new era of prosperity was dawning upon Ireland.

James began by a policy of conciliation and
toleration. He actually appointed a man as a
bishop in 1603, because of his knowledge of the
Irish language (this was Robert Draper, Rector
of Trim, who was made Bishop of Kilmore and
Ardagh).[#] He accepted Tyrone’s homage, and
created Rory O’Donnell Earl of Tyrconnell.
The public worship of the national religion, if
not legalized, was at least tolerated: and the
people hoped that his mother’s son would continue
to pursue a friendly policy. But a few
short years showed how vain this idea was.
Perhaps the king was really in terror from the
Guy Fawkes conspiracy; perhaps he did really
believe that Spain was still intriguing against
England’s power; perhaps he was in hopes that
somehow the acquisition of Irish land might
help him to make money to meet his financial
needs. Whatever the real cause may have
been, a wretched anonymous charge was levelled
against the two Northern Earls, and they fled
for their lives. This may look like weakness,
but the memory of the sufferings endured by
Tyrconnell’s brother, Hugh Roe,[#] in his imprisonment
and his assassination in exile, would
naturally make Irish leaders of that time very
.bn 010.png
.pn +1
shy in placing themselves in English hands
when a serious charge was made against them.

Juries of the time were pliable, or, if they
showed signs of independence, there was a
court of Castle Chamber, corresponding with
the Star Chamber of English history, that could
use means to bring them into line. That the
two Earls were innocent of the plot alleged
against them is a moral certainty. The fact
that when they fled, it was not to Spain they
went, seems strong evidence of this. Any
evidence of a plot depends on the word of St.
Lawrence, Lord Howth, whose character may
be judged from what we read about him in the
State Papers.[#] There was an armed fight in
1609 between him and Sir Roger Jones, the son
of the Lord Chancellor. Speaking of it Sir A.
Chichester refers to the “wrongs done by the
Earl of Howth to the Lord Chancellor”; while
the latter writes to the king of “the murderous
attack made by Howth and his cut-throat (sicariorum)
retainers upon his son.” Plowden gives
the following quotations to show the unreality
of the whole alleged conspiracy, and the base
character of St. Lawrence. “Dr. Anderson in
his <i>Royal Genealogies</i> (p. 786), dedicated to the
Prince of Wales in 1736, says: ‘Artful Cecil
employed one St. Lawrence to entrap the Earls
.bn 011.png
.pn +1
of Tyrone and Tyrconnell, the Lord Delvin, and
other Irish chiefs into a sham plot, which had
no evidence but his. But those chiefs being
basely informed that witnesses were to be hired
against them, foolishly fled from Dublin, and so
taking guilt upon them, they were declared
rebels, and six entire counties in Ulster were at
once forfeited to the Crown, which was what
their enemies wanted.’ That this St. Lawrence
was a fit instrument for such a design is clear,
from what Camden relates of him (Eliz. 741),
viz., that he offered to murder Lord Grey de
Wilton and Sir Thomas Gerald, to prevent their
conveying reports of Essex to the Queen; which
bloody service Essex rejected with indignation.
No history whatever mentions any symptoms
of rising in the North at this time.”[#]

In the subsequent references to the flight
of the Earls, even the king himself tacitly
dropped the charge of conspiracy, and dwelt
upon the disaffection they showed in quitting
the kingdom without leave, which was treated
in those days as a crime. Sir John Davies says
that the Bill laid before the Grand Jury in
Donegal was read in public in English and in
Irish, “so as to discover a great deal of the
evidence to all the hearers to the end that all
the country might be satisfied that the State
.bn 012.png
.pn +1
proceeded against them upon a most just ground,
and that the people, knowing their treacherous
practices, might rest assured that their guilty
consciences and fear of losing their heads was
the only cause of their running away, and not
the allurements of any foreign prince.”[#] Possibly
the Earls may have had communications
with Spain or Rome that they thought would
compromise them. On their arrival in Rome
they sent King James a statement of their
grievances. These embraced arbitrary interference
with their own rights and possessions;
exactions of cattle and other goods levied on
their tenants, who were miserably poor after
the late war; pretended claims to church lands
of enormous extent; and what, perhaps, are the
worst things, in each case they showed that
attempts were perpetually being made to have
charges of treason supported against them, and
also their free exercise of religion was interfered
with. Tyrconnell gave an instance of
one Owen M’Swyne who was to be executed.
Sir Henry Folliott, with the authority of the
Lord Deputy, sent privately promising him his
life and large rewards if he would charge the
Earl with some detestable crime. “Furthermore,”
he says, writing in the third person, “the
said Earl can justify by good proofs, that of
.bn 013.png
.pn +1
twenty and seven persons that were hanged in
Connaught and Tyrconnell, there was not one
but had the former promises, upon like conditions,
made to them.” Of Chichester’s threat to
Tyrconnell that he must attend church, the
latter says, “For this only respect of not going
to church, he resolved rather to abandon lands
and living, yea, all the kingdoms of the earth,
with the loss of his, than to be forced utterly
against his conscience and the utter ruin of his
soul to any such practice.” Tyrone wrote in a
somewhat similar way.[#] It speaks well for the
loyalty of the peasantry to the Earls that the
attempts to get up charges against them failed
so completely. I shall have to refer later on to
the unreality of the religion which the English
party tried to introduce by bribes and threats
into the land. It is plain that the leaders of
Irish government knew of the unreliable character
of Lord Howth, who admitted having
gone to England looking for employment or
pension from the king: but indeed there has
never been a time in Ireland when the use of
base means has not been practised.

However, the dreary record of the illegalities
and confiscations inflicted upon a half-famished
nation is somewhat relieved by the grotesque
absurdities which the State Papers sometimes
.bn 014.png
.pn +1
reveal. For example, Government stooped to
accept the evidence of a professional beggar.
This worthy’s name was Teig O’Falstaf, and he
had gone to Spain simply to beg his way, and
we find the Government solemnly accepting his
evidence that he had heard the Irish priests in
Spain cursing the Lord Deputy in public service.[#]
Salisbury’s espionage on Tyrone after
his flight was a most elaborate affair: his pilot
was a spy, and when he got to Rome another
spy named Richardson was ever watching his
movements to fix something treasonable upon
him, and we have his instructions, endorsed by
Salisbury himself, in which he is told of the
roundabout way he is to send his information to
England, writing as if to a Mr. James Brokesby:
he is minutely instructed how he is to write, as
if from one Catholic to another, and we have a
specimen in a letter (endorsed by Salisbury)
which gives an account of a canonization at
Rome, conveying news of several religious
Orders, enclosing a packet of Agnus Deis with
apologies for not sending more, and sending
Father Parson’s commendations.[#] In a previous
reign Mountjoy’s plots against Tyrone are recorded
in Docwra’s <i>Narrative</i>.[#] What did all
this tissue of espionage before submission, after
rendering homage, and in exile, succeed in
.bn 015.png
.pn +1
proving? Nothing against Tyrone, but much
against the persons who employed such unworthy
methods. From those days down to the
forgery that <i>The Times</i> paraded against Parnell,
and possibly even to a later date, England has
been industriously cherishing everything that
tends to lead her astray about Ireland, and forgetting
the solid fact that, in the length and
breadth of the Empire on which the sun never
sets, there is not another of her colonies or
dependencies that she could hold for a week if
she applied the methods of Irish government
to it.

The idea of colonization was not a new one.
It had been tried officially and unofficially in
various parts of Ireland. When done officially
the attempts had been failures, but the private
colonizations had occasionally been successful—from
the colonists’ point of view. Early in
King James’s reign Chichester had brought over
a number of Englishmen from Devonshire and
planted them in Carrickfergus and Malone,
near Belfast, and it was undoubtedly this which
led to the bold project of colonizing six whole
counties in Ulster. If the matter had been left
to Chichester it would have taken a milder form.
But Sir John Davies began to take a lead in
the project, and in the end he became the
.bn 016.png
.pn +1
working agent of the whole affair. He was Irish
Attorney-General. This was just the time for
unscrupulous and cunning men to rise to power,
for practically everything in the country was in
a state of transition. It had been even suggested
that the standing seat of the Deputy and
the law should be translated from Dublin to
Athlone, as being the centre of Ireland. The
proposal was that the Deputy should have two
presidents, one in Munster at Kylmalocke, the
other in Ulster at Lyeller (probably for Lyffer
or Lifford).[#] Such proposals as these show
the feeling of powerlessness that marked the
English councils, and when the idea of a plantation
was put forward, it became more and more
popular with the Government, increasing in the
harshness of the method of plantation until in
the end it became only a grotesque parody of
what was put forward, a parody in fact so grotesque
that it never worked and never would
have worked. Salisbury and Chichester seem
to have had some idea of humanity in their proposals,
but Davies’ suggestions were cunning,
specious, and harsh. Salisbury proposed to
Chichester to take natives as tenants of part of
the lands, not giving too much to one planter.
Sir Oliver St. John advised that no part of the
land to be planted should be given away, but
.bn 017.png
.pn +1
that it should be let to the natives at high and
dear rates. Chichester though doubtless acquisitive
in the extreme seems to have had
some feeling for the sufferings of others; in a
letter to Salisbury he says, “the word of removing
and transplanting is as welcome to the
natives as the sentence of death.”[#] His proposal
was to divide the land among the inhabitants,
letting each have as much as he can
manage by himself or his tenants; the rest of
the land to be bestowed upon servitors and men
of worth. This was the plan he preferred, but
he felt the need of immediate action, because
when he wrote in September, 1607, after the
flight of the Earls, he said the people were gone
to put on their arms, so he gave as an alternative,
the plan to drive out the natives of Tyrone, Tyrconnell
and Fermanagh, over the rivers of the
Bande (Bann), Blackwater, and Lough Erne,
there to inhabit the waste lands.[#] Sir John
Davies favoured the policy of rooting out the
natives from their holdings, for their own good,
of course! He says transplanting the natives
is like moving a fruit tree, to make it bring forth
better fruit, and not to destroy it. His plan was
accepted.

Notwithstanding his learned lore about fruit
trees, we shall see that there was no enthusiasm
.bn 018.png
.pn +1
about the farming operations of the Davies
clique in the subsequent enquiries and surveys
of the plantation. To him was due the idea of
excluding the Irish from the colonies.

But before the lands could be handed over to
the English and Scotch adventurers, there was
a little preliminary violation of a solemn pledge.
Perhaps a Stuart’s word never counted for very
much, yet in passing we may as well record that
after the flight of Tyrone and Tyrconnell, James
solemnly declared that their vassals (for such
they were rather than tenants) should be protected
in their rights. There are no less than
three proclamations to this effect, of the dates
7th September, 1st November, and 9th November,
1607. Let me quote the title of one.
“Proclamation declaring that the King had
taken into his hands all the lands and goods of
the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell, Cowconnaght
Oge Magwir and their other fellow-fugitives,
and that he would preserve in their
estates and protect all the inhabitants of those
counties who held under the persons who had
thus forfeited.”[#] It would appear that the
rising of Sir Cahir O’Dogherty, which was
limited to Inishowen, a small portion of Tyrconnell,
was made the excuse for violating the
solemn pledges we have quoted, pledges which
.bn 019.png
.pn +1
referred to the Celts of six counties. The fact
was that after these proclamations were made,
Davies the Irish Attorney-General and Bacon,
then the English Solicitor-General, decided
that the natives must be rooted out, and if
O’Dogherty’s rebellion had not occurred, some
other convenient excuse would have been made.
O’Dogherty’s rising originated in the violent and
overbearing disposition of Sir George Paulett,
the governor of the colony at Derry. Sir
Richard Cox says,[#] “Undoubtedly the Government
well enough understood, that this rebellion
was designed to be the most general that had
ever been in Ireland; and that the Confederates
had better assurance, or at least a stronger expectation
of foreign aid, than in any rebellion
heretofore.” These words can surely have no
truth in them. There seems to have been a
dispute concerning rent between O’Dogherty
and Tyrone. Sir Cahir had been foreman of the
Grand Jury of Donegal when the Commission
met that was sent to inquire into the attainted
estates of Tyrone and Tyrconnell.[#] In fact
until he resented the personal indignity put
upon him by Paulett (who struck him) he had
been a loyal and willing subject of the Crown,
and there was naturally nothing in his previous
career to make him a leader who could rally a
.bn 020.png
.pn +1
large force of insurgents around him. Instead
of showing a great organized revolt, the comparative
success of his brief rising points to the
deep detestation of the Ulster men against their
English rulers, and their willingness to follow
any leader who could assume the headship over
them. The following is quoted from the Celtic
Society’s <i>Miscellany</i>, a note on Docwra’s <i>Narration</i>[#]:
“It is not generally known that Sir
Cahir O’Dogherty was knighted for his bravery
in fighting against the O’Neills. Such, however,
was the case, as is clear from our author’s text.
He was as great an enemy to O’Domhnaill as
was Niall Garbh, and his rebellion when too late
had its origin in a personal insult.” In fact until
he went out into open revolt, Sir Cahir and Lady
O’Dogherty (and especially the latter) had always
shown a preference for English society.[#]

The rules for the Plantation of Ulster are to
be found in MacNevin’s <i>Confiscation of Ulster</i>.
The lands were to be divided into portions of
1,000, 1,500 and 2,000 acres. They were originally
to have been given by lot, but this was
afterwards abandoned. The rent for the English
and Scotch adventurers was £5 6s. 8d. for 1,000
acres, or 1⅓d. per acre. Taking the value of
money then at 12 or 13 times the present value,
this was not a heavy charge. Any “meer Irish”
.bn 021.png
.pn +1
who got grants of land had to pay double;[#]
besides, the rent for the English and Scotch was
remitted for the first two years, but the natives
were not excused, on the ground that they had
no charges for transportation. The Plantation
acre was invented to make up for any deficiency
in the acreage caused by mountain and bog.
The expressions ‘Fengal measure,’ and ‘great
country measure,’ are also to be met with in the
documents of the period: I do not know what
their exact significations are.[#] Every undertaker
was to build in proportion to his grant:
the 2,000 acre man was within two years to build
a castle, with a strong court or bawn around it.
The 1,500 acre man a stone or brick house with
a bawn about it; and the 1,000 acre undertaker
to build at least a strong court or bawn. They
were to have free timber for the two years.
They were to have a store of arms. Thus in
a grant to Lady Lambert it is specified that in
the house she is to build at Cavan, they are “to
keep therein 21 muskets and callivers, and 21
hand weapons as arms for 42 men, for defence
against rebels and enemies; also 9 muskets and
callivers, and 9 hand weapons, and also 12 muskets
and callivers and 12 hand weapons, according
to the instructions for the Plantation of
Ulster.” A formidable little provision for arming
.bn 022.png
.pn +1
84 men in one house.[#] Every undertaker to
take the oath of Supremacy; not to demise any
land to the meer Irish; not to leave the country
for five years. Restrictions were put upon
their demising the land within five years. They
were not to create tenancies at will, but for a
number of years, for life, in tail or in fee-simple.
Irish systems of tenure were abolished. The
undertakers were given special privileges in the
remission of customs, both for the importation
of manufactured goods, and the exportation of
the produce of their lands. It would be a mistake
to suppose from these insolent rules about
the “meer Irish” that none of them got any
land. The outside undertakers got the good
grants, but the natives got their leavings. The
mountainous slopes and remote lands and other
parts that were not likely to be productive, were
given to the native element. The plan was to
concentrate the intruders into villages and
towns, and to scatter the Irish as much as possible,
putting the servitors (or English who had
been in Ireland for some years in military service)
near to the natives to keep them in awe.
There was always some land that it was quite
necessary to let the Irish get, if it was ever to
be saved from becoming absolutely waste land.
Sir R. Jacob (the Solicitor-General for Ireland)
.bn 023.png
.pn +1
showed both humour and acuteness in a letter
he wrote to Salisbury in 1609, in which he urged
the safety of allowing the natives to keep some
land, and also suggests that the very inferior
parts might go to them, he says: “The arrantest
knave of the Byrne’s answered Sir Henry Sydney,
when accused of dwelling on the Archbishop’s
lands without paying rent, ‘My Lord, if I dwelt
not there, none but thieves and outlaws would.’
So he says civil men will not plant themselves
in mountain, rocks or desert places, even if they
have it for nothing.... The Irish had no leader
and no arms; they had 20,000 fighting men in
Ulster if they had arms. O’Dogherty could not
have made the progress he did, if he had not
first lighted upon the king’s storehouse so as
to arm his men.”[#] Those natives who got
grants of a substantial amount obtained them as
a special reward for subserviency in some form
or other: for instance, Art McBarron was given
2,000 acres in Orior to induce him to clear out
of O’Neilan, Chichester considering that his
removal would be a great help in getting other
natives to go out. In that case the grant was
only for the lives of Art McBarron and his
wife.[#] Similarly when Sir Tirlagh McHenry
O’Neale was willing to be moved out of the
Fewes, a request was made that orders be sent
.bn 024.png
.pn +1
to the Lord Deputy to provide some convenient
place in Cavan or elsewhere to settle him, in
order to plant servitors in his country. Are we
really so like sheep? There is yet to be told
even a more absurd illustration than the case of
McBarron to show how much our rulers in King
James’ day believed we played the game of
“follow my leader.” As a matter of fact, so
far was this from being the case, that the native
gentry who got grants of land became degraded
in position, so that those who were gentry
children in 1610 were in 1670 old men in frieze
coats, farming small scraps of land. Few of the
Irish who got somewhat liberal grants were able
to retain them until the time of Pynnar’s inspection
in 1618-1620.

It is not clear that conforming to the Act of
Supremacy was essential in the native grantees,
though we may be sure from what we see about
the encouragements given to Irishmen of position
who conformed, that as much use as possible
was made of the plan of bribing people
into Protestantism. So we must seek for other
reasons for the failure to keep their possessions:
there was the requirement of an English or
stone house to be built; the abolition of the old
tribal land systems and introduction of another
system that they did not understand; the depression
.bn 025.png
.pn +1
resulting from the discovery that they
were now become a part of the English garrison.
To which we must remember to add, that the
natives’ grants of lands were in the most barren
and rocky parts of Ulster. As a people we are
mainly pastoral, and this was more conspicuously
the case in the days of the Plantation, as everyone
who has read Spenser’s <i>View of Ireland</i>
will remember. The only hope of doing much
with nearly all of the land given to the natives
lay in tillage, a thing which the Irish of that day
had a very imperfect knowledge of. Hill mentions
one case where the ownership of the land
continued on all right: it was in the grant to
Tirlagh Oge  O’Neale’s widow; and in that case
the Irish custom was specially permitted by the
Government grant.[#] In his Survey Pynnar
says the English did not plough or use husbandry,
being afraid to incur the risk, and that
the Irish did not because they did not know
when they might be moved. So the Scotch were
the only ones who supplied food. The British
lived on the heavy rents paid them by the Irish
grazing tenants. If the Irish were to take away
their cattle, he says, the British must either
forsake their dwellings or endure great distress
on the sudden. “Yet,” he says, “the co-habitation
of the Irish is dangerous.” This report tells
.bn 026.png
.pn +1
us there were most Irish on the London Company’s
lands; five proportions were not estated;
it was more profitable to take Irish on them;
seven proportions were leased for 61 years, and
the lessees affirmed they were not bound to
plant English on them. There were sixty
natives in Tyrone who got small grants, generally
of 60 acres each. They were all transplanted
into portions of the barony of Dungannon
which neither undertakers nor servitors
would occupy.[#] Here are some of the figures
of natives grants. It is necessary to mention that
it very often happens that one grant is made
out for a number of persons.

.in +6
.ti -3
Oriel, 4,080 acres in forty grants.
.ti -3
Dungannon, 4,080 acres in forty-nine grants.
.ti -3
Kilmacrenan, 13,752 acres in nineteen
grants.
.ti -3
Clonemahowne, 3,587 acres in eight grants.
.ti -3
Tullagarvy, 6,012 acres in eight grants.
.ti -3
Clinawly, 6,208 acres in fifty-two grants.
.ti -3
Coole and Tircannada, 4,160 acres in five
grants.
.ti -3
Tullaghah, Cavan, 4,900 acres in twenty-one
grants.
.ti -3
Castle Rashen, 5,700 acres in eighteen
grants.
.in -6

Concerning the district among these in which
.bn 027.png
.pn +1
the largest amount of land was assigned to the
natives, Kilmacrenan, let us hear what its character
was. After a mention of the commencement
of some work having been made by Captain
Will Stewart, in Kilmacrenan, we are told
“the rest of the servitors have done nothing
by reason of the wildness of the land, being the
worst in all the country, insomuch that the
natives are unwilling to come to dwell upon it
until they be forced to remove.”[#]

Grants of refuse land having been assigned
to a few hundred of the natives, what became
of the others, the unfortunate people who found
aliens suddenly planted upon the land of their
fathers, and had no other provision made for
them? Government provided that they should
go. It does not seem to have been at all a
worry to Government where they should go, as
long as they went. The only thing needful was
that they should be got away from the lands to
be planted. Some were impressed into the service
of the King of Sweden, some were transported
to the newly-formed colony of Virginia,
some went to the natives’ parts, and some to
work on the Bishops’ or servitors’ lands. The
great thing was that they should go. The
leading Irishmen were all killed; banished or imprisoned
on frivolous charges, or occasionally on
.bn 028.png
.pn +1
no charges at all. The most brilliant of them,
Brian MacArt O’Neill, the son of Art McBarron,
was accused on a false charge of slaying a man
at a family party in the house of Turlough
McHenry O’Neill of the Fews, and was arrested
and hanged. He had been the rising hope of
the natives; it was thought he would proclaim
himself “The O’Neill.” His name is perpetuated
near Belfast in MacArt’s Fort, on the Cave
Hill, Ballymacarrett, and O’Neill’s Fort.[#] Three
men of high position, all bearing English titles,
were imprisoned in the Tower by Chichester. Sir
Donnell Ballagh O’Cahan was one of Tyrone’s
sons-in-law; he had left Tyrone in 1600 when
Docwra landed at Derry with a large force. A
promise was made him that he would be given
a territory independent of Tyrone. Sir Henry
Docwra honourably maintained this promise,
but after the Queen’s death it was repudiated by
Chichester. O’Cahan spoke bitterly. He does
not seem to have contemplated any violent step,
but when he heard of the two Earls making for
Derry, he hastened to join them, as if he wanted
to quietly leave the land that was now cursed
by the wiles and the falsehood of the strangers.
But haste as he would, the poor man failed to
join the two Earls, and then like a squeezed
lemon, he was cast aside. He was imprisoned
.bn 029.png
.pn +1
first in Dublin and then in the Tower. Never
tried; he had committed no crime save that of
Esau; for he wanted to escape from his responsibilities,
and to leave his lands and his vassals
to the possession of the race he could now trust
no longer. For nineteen years in lonely imprisonment
he lived to curse the day when he
allowed himself to be overcome by English
blandishments. Another person whose existence
was inconvenient was Sir Cormac O’Neill,
the brother of Tyrone. He brought to Dublin
Castle the news of the flight of the Earls; he
asked to be custodian of his brother’s lands and
premises till his return; but lawyer Davies had
already an eye to the plunder of the Ulster
lands, so with grim humour he wrote, “We took
a custodian of the knight himself.” The third
prisoner, Sir Neal Garve O’Donnell, had a claim
to the chiefry of Tyrconnell, he was married to
the Earl’s sister, Nuala. It was impossible to
get a jury to convict him.[#] It was some consolation
to Sir Neal in his imprisonment to
know that his wife was not starving or insane
like Sir Donnell O’Cahan’s; for Lady O’Donnell
went into exile with her brother, and soothed
his dying hours. Many of the people preferred
voluntary exile to remaining in Ireland under
the altered conditions. The Earls and leaders
.bn 030.png
.pn +1
were banished or in prison or dead. In 1611
Chichester revived a proclamation of 1605 for
the banishment of priests; so many went of
their own accord to Spain or the Netherlands.

Then with a thoughtful feeling for Irish prejudices,
Government even provided some of the
people with free passages out of the country;
but in this case they were not sent to Spain, but
into the service of the King of Sweden. When
we remember that it was in the days of Gustavus
Adolphus, “the Lion of the North, and the
Champion of the Protestant Faith,” it will be
seen that this measure of emigration was eminently
calculated to show the considerateness of
our English rulers. The men who took the
people to Sweden were Captains Sandford and
Bingley. I shall quote the reference from the
Calendar of Patent Rolls. “King’s letter for a
grant to Captain John Sandford, for ever, of all
the mountain lands, bogs and woods in Ulster,
escheated to the Crown, by the attainders of the
Earls of Tyrone and Tierconnell, or any of their
adherents, or any other traitors, or which otherwise
belong to the Crown, and are not now in
charge, to be holden under the conditions of the
Plantation of Ulster, at a yearly rent of £10.
This grant is to be made in consideration of
Captain Sandford’s absence, during the distribution
.bn 031.png
.pn +1
of the escheated lands in Ulster, in consequence
of which no portion was assigned to
him, he being then engaged in conducting the
loose kerne and swordsmen of that province to
the service of the King of Sweden, disburthening
the country by that means of many turbulent
and disaffected persons who would otherwise
have troubled the peace.” (It will, perhaps, be
satisfactory to learn that, in addition to this
grant, Sandford secured lands in Donegal from
Sir Richard and Sir Ralph Bingley, and Sir
John Davies.) This Sweden business seems to
have been eminently successful from the Government
point of view. Sir R. Jacob wished that
1,000 more could be sent from each province;
and hopes were expressed that the swordsmen,
not only of Ulster, but of Connaught, could be
transmitted to Sweden or Virginia.[#] We have
the follow-my-leader theory again; for the
Lords of the Council proposed to Chichester
that native gentlemen should be sent to be
leaders and heads for the troops who were transported
into Gustavus Adolphus’s service. The
charges were £1 each for clothing, 5d. per day
per man for thirty-one days, carriage 10s. per
man, and a sum amounting to 10s. per man for
fee for pressing them into a foreign service.

If the rules about the non-employment of
.bn 032.png
.pn +1
natives, and not letting them get on the land,
had been strictly observed, it would certainly
have led to a complete turning out of the people,
and perhaps have precipitated the rising of 1641.
And it was from no want of will on the part of
the intruders that the law was not rigidly followed.
The truth was, English and Scotch
settlers were difficult to get; so, however unwillingly,
the undertakers admitted Irish tenants
and labourers, who in their despair were willing
to come to any terms. Chichester saw clearly
all along that an impossible thing was being
attempted. He wrote in 1610 strongly opposing
any change of policy about the natives, and
speaks of the folly of crowding large numbers of
servitors and natives in half a barony (as in
Tyrone),[#] and says the natives will rather die
than be removed to the small proportions assigned
to them, or will seek a new dwelling in
other counties. The Viceroy, as we see, was
never in earnest in enforcing the laws for the
expelling of natives; and so those laws were
never fully carried out. The squatters required
the Irish as hewers of wood and drawers of
water. These restrictions were abolished before
the end of James’ reign, and in 1626 the original
undertakers, having failed to comply with the
Plantation rules preventing them having native
.bn 033.png
.pn +1
tenants, and having thus rendered themselves
liable to forfeiture under Charles I, were allowed
to surrender their titles, and get a re-grant under
new conditions, one of which was that one
quarter of each proportion was to be let to native
tenants.

Thus a period of less than two decades
saw the final disappearance of the obnoxious
parts of the Plantation system. But they had
never had vitality, and indeed the agents of the
Irish Society from the very beginning insisted
on letting their lands to Irish tenants. When
the representatives of the Londoners came over
on a tour of inspection, the officials who met
them were given strict injunctions to put everything
in the best light, and one of their cares
was to prevent the Londoners from having any
unnecessary fears of the Irish. In this they
succeeded so well that they overshot the mark.
The London Companies could get very few
British tenants in O’Cahan’s country or Laughinsholin,
where the people kept so many pikes,
so they insisted on having Irish tenants. Hill
says, “The Companies stoutly maintained the
right of holding the Irish as their tenants, of preventing
their expulsion; and to these Londoners
we are indebted, more perhaps than to the servitors
or Bishops, for the thriving and vigorous
.bn 034.png
.pn +1
native population in Ulster at the present day.
Indeed the whole business furnishes a curious
illustration of the following words of the
poet:—
.pm verse-start
The best laid schemes of mice and men,
      Gang aft aglee,
And leave them naught but grief and pain
      For promised joy.”[#]
.pm verse-end

In 1622 the king sent a charge to enforce the
law requiring the natives to leave the planted
land. In it he admits that the law has not been
at all carefully complied with. He speaks of
“the continual unconformity, as well of those
natives as of the undertakers, upon whose portions
they remain,” and concludes, “In this
particular we were always resolved, and yet are,
not to spare those undertakers and their tenants,
until we have reformed them, but rather if they
persist still in their ingratitude and disobedience,
to use the advantages which our laws and their
own manifold contempt have given us against
them, in a more severe manner than hitherto
we have done.”[#]

The treatment of the aged Eochaidh or Oghie
O’Hanlon, the chieftain of Orior in County
Armagh, seems to have been unnecessarily
harsh, though I can hardly agree with the denunciations
of the Rev. Geo. Hill on the meanness
.bn 035.png
.pn +1
of it. This venerable man, who represented
a race which had been supreme in Ulster ages
before the O’Neills had any prominence, was
uniformly loyal to the English connexion. He
had a son who was a leading man in Sir Cahir
O’Dogherty’s rising, and the aged father was
guilty of the crime, if such it could be called, of
giving his son shelter for a night in his castle
at Tandragee during the revolt. This, of course,
was treason, and the father might have been
hanged. But he had often borne the standard
of the Irish on the English side, so his penalty
was commuted to the forfeiture of his estates,
and he was offered £80 a year pension as compensation.
He did not live to draw one quarter’s
payment, for he was a broken-hearted old
man, and died, literally of grief, on hearing that
his son’s wife, who was a sister of Sir Cahir
O’Dogherty, had perished in the woods after
having given birth to a child.[#] Nowadays £80
is a small sum, but it would seem that three
hundred years ago, it was worth about £1,000
of our money. So we can hardly agree with
Mr. Hill’s statement that there was meanness in
giving O’Hanlon such a pension. O’Hanlon
Junior kept up his guerilla warfare as the leader
of a number of outlaws of the Robin Hood type,
called woodkerne, and the trouble they gave
.bn 036.png
.pn +1
was only brought to an end when they allowed
themselves to be transported to Sweden, to fight
for Gustavus Adolphus, a service which they
hated, and took every opportunity of deserting
to his opponent, the King of Spain.

It is only fair, too, to mention that the Lady
Mary, Sir Cahir O’Dogherty’s widow, was given
an annual pension of £80,[#] and that the widow
of Sir Cowconnaght Macgwire received compensation
for the lands she had to surrender in Fermanagh.
I am not sure whether she got £100
or £200 a year. The legal documents first
mention a surrender of her lands for an annuity
of £100 a year, and then a pension of £100, and
I do not know whether the two statements refer
to one salary of £100 or two. Also that Tyrconnell’s
widow, Bridget, Countess of Tyrconnell,
was given a yearly pension of £300. Compared
with the posthumous savagery of Government to
Pamela, Lord Edward Fitzgerald’s widow, this
was generosity indeed.

Now who were the planters in Ulster, and
what rules were made about the distribution of
the land? The new owners were formally
divided into three classes, (i) English and Scottish,
who were to plant their proportions with
English and Scottish tenants; (2) Servitors in
Ireland, who might take English or Irish tenants
.bn 037.png
.pn +1
at their choice; (3) Natives of Ulster, who were
to be freeholders. But in reality they included
samples of a great many social grades. “Cook’s
son, duke’s son,” were to be found among them.
English gentlemen of little or no property,
Scotch lairds and noblemen with their innumerable
clans of relations, soldiers and adventurers,
royal grooms and servants. Shurley and Case
were footmen when they received grants of land
in Longford.[#] Wray was a groom when he
was appointed to the responsible task of seeing
that the natives were cleared off the escheated
lands; he was to levy fines on them and to
keep the money. Then there were the London
Companies. Then there were the true patriots;
the men who at home had distinguished themselves
by crime, or by debt, and found it desirable
to leave their native land; these fulfilled
the saying of the famous Irish pickpocket, Barrington,
in the prologue that he wrote for a play
performed by convicts in Botany Bay:

.pm verse-start
True patriots we, for be it understood
We’ve left our country for our country’s good.
.pm verse-end

Among these we should class the Graemes,
who had been outlaws, cattle-lifters, and border-robbers
on the banks of the Tweed. They had
been transplanted in a body to Roscommon in
Elizabeth’s reign; but even the residence in the
.bn 038.png
.pn +1
Land of Saints did not reform their ideas of
property, so they were dispersed and scattered
through Ulster in 1610. All were unanimous
in one thing only, that they would make as much
as they could out of the property, and then go.
But, owing to the force of circumstances, the
Scotchmen stuck with more pertinacity to their
possessions than did most of the other settlers.
The English undertakers were mainly from the
Eastern counties, Norfolk and Suffolk. They
brought no following with them. So they met
with difficulty in getting workers and tenants,
being forbidden to accept the natives. There
were constant bickerings among the undertakers
themselves, and with the Bishops about church
rights, real or pretended. None of these things
worried the canny North Britons, who looked
upon Ulster as a veritable Eldorado. A ferry
was established between Donaghadee and the
Rynnes of Galloway or Portpatrick.[#] Over it
there poured such a ragged regiment as the Irish
Sea has never witnessed before or since. Not
singly they came, but in battalions; the Scotch
Bishop of Raphoe (Montgomery, Bishop of
Clogher, Derry and Raphoe, grand-uncle of
William Montgomery of the Manuscripts) received
permission at one grant for the denization
of three hundred of his countrymen whom he
.bn 039.png
.pn +1
should bring over. They had candidates for
denization among all classes: younger brothers
and sons-in-law and cousins to get grants of land,
and workmen and farmers ready to settle down
on industrial pursuits. As they did not absolutely
rely on the offices of the State church for
their religion, we find many ministers of the
Presbyterian community coming over and being
given licence of denization, and in course of time
this third religion became a settled thing in the
land. Oily and smooth-tongued these were;
willing, with some canting expressions, to change
over and become clergymen of the English
Church if an opportunity of making anything by
the change came in their way. The descriptions
of the careers of some of these men (in Reid’s
<i>Presbyterianism in Ulster</i>) are very amusing.
Hamilton was ordained by the Protestant Bishop
of Down (Echlin). Robert Blair left Glasgow
where he had a professorship, because Dr.
Cameron, who had been appointed Principal,
with the view of bringing the college to approve
of prelacy, had opposed Blair. The latter came
to Ireland, and Lord Claneboy proposed he
should be rector of Bangor, County Down. But
about his opposition to prelacy? The Bishop
said, “Will you not receive ordination from Mr.
Cunningham and the adjacent brethren, and let
.bn 040.png
.pn +1
me come in among them in no other relation
than a presbyter?” So thus, hungering after
the flesh-pots of prelacy, he entered into a church
whose fundamental tenets he disagreed with.[#]

The Scotch undertakers had previously been
made acquainted with Ulster by the colonizations
in Elizabeth’s reign in Down and Antrim.
They felt more at home in a land where their
friends had gone previously. The geographical
position was favourable to them. So they and
their followers settled permanently in sufficient
numbers to give the movement a thoroughly
Scotch aspect. Yet for all that, Mr. Prendergast
says,[#] “Ulster continued to be the dangerous
part of Ireland till after the war of the Revolution,
when it was nearly colonized anew by the
Scotch settlers and camp-followers of King
William’s foreign forces. Eighty thousand small
Scotch adventurers came in between 1690 and
1698 into different parts of Ireland, but chiefly
into Ulster.”

Let me give a contemporary picture that is
pleasant enough of a set of these Scotch settlers
of James I’s reign. They were the holders of
land in the barony of Mountjoy, Co. Tyrone;
they had fallen into a goodly possession, and the
industry we see them all conspicuous for is not
to be looked upon as typical of all the adventurers,
.bn 041.png
.pn +1
but only of those who were favoured by
circumstances and surroundings. The men were,
Andrew Stewart, Lord O’Chiltree; he was of
old Scottish descent, and the fourth Lord
O’Chiltree. He had fallen into difficulties, and
was obliged to sell his barony to Sir James
Stewart; the title went with the barony, so it
was only a courtesy title by which he was called;
but the king, to encourage him and his son, conferred
on the young man the title of Earl of
Castlestuart; Robert Stewart of Hilton, an
Edinburgh man; Sir Robert Hepburn, a
Scotch soldier; George Crayford or Crawford,
Laird of Loughnorris, an Ayrshire man, belonging
to an old family; Bernard and Robert
Lindsay, who belonged to Leith; Robert
Stewart of Rotton, an uncle of Lord O’Chiltree,
and finally a brother of Robert Stewart of Hilton.
These two Stewarts of Edinburgh, and
the two Lindsays were all servants or caterers
in some fashion to the king. In 1611, a year
after they had taken out their patents, Carew
makes the following report[#]: “Lord Ucheltrie,
3,000 acres; being stayed by contrary winds
in Scotland, arrived in Ireland (at the time of our
being in Armagh, upon our return home) accompanied
with 33 followers, gents of sort [<i>i.e.</i>,
gentlemen of position], a minister, some tenants,
.bn 042.png
.pn +1
freeholders and artificers, unto whom he hath
passed estates; he hath built for his present use
three houses of oak timber, one of 50 feet long
and 22 feet wide, and two of 40 feet long,
within an old fort, about which he is building a
bawne. There are two ploughs going on his
demesne, with some fifty cows and three score
young heifers landed at Island Magy in Clandeboy
which are coming to his proportion, with
some twelve working mares. Sir Robert Hepburn,
Knight, 1,500 acres; sowed oats and
barley the last year upon his land, and reaped
this harvest 40 hogsheads of corn; is resident;
hath 140 cows young and old, and 8 mares; is
building a stone house 40 feet long and 20 feet
wide, already a storey high; intends to have it
three stories high, and to cover it, and the next
spring to add another storey to it; good store
of timber felled and squared, and providing
materials to finish the work. The Laird Loughnorris,
1,000 acres; being deceased himself, as
we are informed, had his agent here, Robert
O’Rorke; hath timber felled and is preparing
materials for building against the spring. Bernard
and Robert Lindsay, 1,000 acres apiece;
have taken possession personally in the summer,
1610, returned into Scotland’s agent, Robert
Cowties resident; a timber house is built on
.bn 043.png
.pn +1
Robert Lindsey’s proportion; hath eight mares,
and eight cows with their calves, and five oxen,
with swine and other small cattle, and a competent
portion of arms. Robert Stewart of
Haulton, 1,000 acres: hath appeared in person,
and brought some people; timber felled, and
preparing materials for building. Robert
Stewart of Robstone, 1,000 acres, hath appeared
in person, with tenants and cattle; timber felled
and squared, and providing materials for building.
The Castle of Mountjoy, upon Lough
Chichester [Lough Neagh] beside the old fort,
wherein are many inhabitants both English and
Irish, together with Sir Francis Roe’s foot company.
Here is a fair castle of stone and brick,
covered with slate and tile, begun in the late
Queen’s time, and finished by his Majesty. It
is compassed about by a good strong rampier
of earth, well ditched and flanked with bulwarks.
In this Castle Sir Francis Roe, the constable,
and his family dwell.” This seems a happy sort
of family; it represents the most industrious
type of undertaker, who brings his family influence
to bear in getting workers into the place.
One would look upon them as intending to
settle with their families for ever; but, alas for
the good intentions of King James, when Pynnar’s
survey was made in 1619 five of these proportions
.bn 044.png
.pn +1
had passed to other hands, mostly by
sale. Just as the young fellows who improve
land now in Canada try to make something on
it in a few years by sale, so a large number of
the Ulster Plantation lands went the same way.
Nearly all the king’s servants who obtained
grants, sold them as soon as possible. Sir James
Craig was clerk of the wardrobe and had probably
begun life as a tailor. The brothers
Achmootie were also servants of the king, and
sold their lands.[#] Their common greed for
money was the distinguishing point of all these
worthies. Some of them are specially worthy
of note for their acquisitiveness. Touchet, Lord
Audelay, and his clan, were amongst these.
This nobleman came from Staffordshire, and had
entirely failed as a planter in Munster. When
the northern confiscations began, he made a
modest request for 100,000 acres. I don’t know
whether the word “land-grabber” was then in
vogue, but at any rate his demand was rejected;
but he and his interesting family got the barony
of Omagh among them, which was set down as
having 11,000 arable acres. Lord Audelay got
3,000 acres; Sir Marvin Audley, his son, 2,000;
Sir Ferdinand Audley 2,000; Sir John Davies,
his son-in-law, 2,000; Edward Blount, another
son-in-law, 2,000. The old man was made Earl
.bn 045.png
.pn +1
of Castlehaven, and Davies the lawyer became
ancestor of the Earls of Huntingdon, by his
daughter marrying a Mr. Hastings. Davies’
grants in all parts of Ulster were enormous;
many of the properties were beyond his powers
to manage, and he sold them. Here is a report
of work done, the date is 1611. “Cavan Precinct
of Loughtie. Sir John Davys, Kt., 2,000
acres, has made over his proportion to Mr.
Richard Waldron, who passed the same to Mr.
Regnold Home, who sold his estate to Sir
Nicholas Lusher, Kt., nothing done.”[#]

Davies got grants of land, confiscated properties
and so forth, literally in every county in
Ireland. He also received a grant of 100 marks
for his services about the parliament. The
grant just quoted in Omagh alone must have
worked out for the family at nearly the 100,000
acres asked for. On Lord Audley’s death it was
found that his property contained not only the
3,000 acres granted, but also 3,000 of meadow,
3,000 of pasture, 2,000 of wood, 2,000 of briars
and whins, and 200 of bog; thus extending his
original 3,000 to 13,200, these additions having
been thrown in as unprofitable or waste land.
So greedy were these men that there was a
special commission appointed to correct any
blunders that had been made in the grants to
.bn 046.png
.pn +1
the little family group. Davies, Touchet’s son-in-law,
the Irish Attorney-General, and the evil
genius of the whole Plantation, was described by
Tyrone as being more fitted to be a stage-player
than a lawyer. In the case of this Audley crew,
the enquiries showed that they neglected the
land shamefully, and did not even reside.

Hamilton, the first Earl of Abercorn, and his
crowd, were an example of the hungry Scotch
lairds. James Hamilton was the head of this
family party; he was grandson of the second
Earl of Arran. He, his brother Sir Claud, his
brother Sir George, his kinsman another George,
his brother-in-law Sir Thomas Boyd, got out of
O’Neill’s property the greater part of the barony
of Strabane. Sir George afterwards incurred
Royal displeasure and lost his property by becoming
a Roman Catholic, and his grandson was
a general in the Jacobite army in Ireland.[#] Sir
Arthur Chichester got Inishowen as his plunder
for having been viceroy, and especially for his
subserviency in the Parliamentary dispute. He
also got large tracts of country where Belfast
now is. These three, the Chichesters, the Hamiltons,
and the Touchets must have taken an
enormous amount of land amongst them.

Then there were the London Companies. The
city was very slow in taking up the idea of a
.bn 047.png
.pn +1
settlement in Ireland, and when they did consent
to the plan insisted on getting their own
way, without any regard to the Plantation rules.
As one looks back on the history of the Irish
Society, and a chequered history it has been,
the best we can say of it is that this gigantic
system of absenteeism has not been as bad as
one might have prophesied.

The grants and leases to the natives were of
very small value, mostly 60 acres, and were only
given to a small number. In a great number of
cases they were limited either by being only
given for one or two lives, with remainders to
Englishmen, or by the possibility of forfeiture
under the regime of a new landlord. The Derry
see lands were at first let out thus; to English or
Scotch on lease for sixty years; to Irish for
twenty-one years or three lives, with power of
revocation by the succeeding Bishop.[#] Before
eight years had elapsed we find that the tenants
had been compelled to surrender their leases and
take out new ones “on increased rents, by means
whereof the revenues were well increased, to the
honour of Almighty God.” Occasionally a native
appears with 1,000 acres opposite his name, but
it is pretty rare. For example, “Only forty
natives in the whole extensive County of Donegal
obtained small grants in the dreary regions
.bn 048.png
.pn +1
of Doe and Fanet, now Kilmacrenan. Several
of them were representatives of noble Irish families,
and the remainder belonged to the class of
native gentry. The prevailing surnames amongst
them were those of O’Donnell, MacSwyne,
O’Gallagher, and O’Boyle. A few very old
people got pretty liberal grants, but with remainders
to Sir Ralph Bingley and Sir Richard
Hansard.”[#] Some of the conditions attached
to grants in this reign are very striking:

.in +6
.ti -3
Dowry to be forfeited on marrying an Irishman.
.ti -3
Not to take tenants nor employ anyone who
could only speak Irish.
.ti -3
Not to destroy passes or bridges unless they
led into the Irishmen’s land.
.ti -3
Not to take the names of O’Rourke, O’Mulloy,
The Fox, McCoghlan, O’Doyne,
The Great O’Ferrall, The Great
O’Carroll.[#]
.in -6

It looks a little absurd when some Smith or
Brown of an English county, or a Menzies or a
Montgomery from Scotland, is enjoined so
seriously that he must never take the name of
The Fox, or The Great O’Carroll.

We must turn now to the religious ideals of
the Plantation, and we all know King James was
nothing if not religious. I shall try to approach
.bn 049.png
.pn +1
the subject with a dispassioned candour, and
speak as an Irishman who loves his country, and
as a churchman who longs to see the day when
the Protestant Church in Ireland shall become
converted to Irish ideas in politics. That
Church has been given ecclesiastical Home Rule,
and has made full use of its privileges, for it
treats theological matters in a way quite independent
of English churchmanship. May we
not hope for the day when politically it shall
cease to allow itself to be dragged at the tail of
one English political party? In the Plantation
it was intended that the church by the State
established should have an endowment in every
place; the idea being that in every 1,000 acres
sixty should be reserved for the support of the
clergyman. And an additional endowment was
given by the lands and the patronage of parishes
handed over to Trinity College, Dublin.
It was, doubtless, hoped that a settled and established
Protestant ministry would lead the people
all to turn over in time to that faith. And in
the meantime, Government was prepared to do
all it could by fears and bribery to lead the
people in the way it was wished they should go.
For a native squire or peasant to conform was
the passport to get a miserable patch of land.
Lord Coursye was given a pension of £100 a
.bn 050.png
.pn +1
year for good service, and it was continued and
increased to £150 to his eldest son because he
had become a Protestant. In another case, Sir
James Dillon was made Lord Dillon and Baron
of Kilkenny because his eldest son had conformed.[#]
Yet with all these brilliant prospects
before them, the people did not flock in their
thousands around the preachers of the Established
Church. The reason of this was that
there was practically no Protestant church in
Ulster. It existed only on paper; it was a
regular Army Corps. The ecclesiastical buildings
were ruinous and desolate; the clergy, where
such existed, were the offscourings of the English
church, men of depraved life, or so ignorant that
they could hardly perform their duties properly.
From the bishops down, pluralities were the
common and recognized thing; occasionally even
we see a man actually holding an English living
and a lot of Irish ones at the same time; thus
the same man was Archdeacon of Dublin, Treasurer
of Cashel Cathedral, Vicar of Galballydrome
and Leighlin Macvoge, and Rector of Battersea
in Surrey.[#] John Todd, who seems to have been
even below the average of the Irish clergy of that
time, as we shall see presently, is found on his
appointment as Bishop of Down in 1610 writing
to Norton to ask him to intercede with Salisbury
.bn 051.png
.pn +1
that he may not lose his right to the mastership
of the Savoy. Even men of high character like
Archbishop Usher themselves benefited by
these abuses. The fines of the recusants—<i>i.e.</i>,
the Catholics—were to go to pious purposes like
the building of Protestant churches, or were
impounded by the Archbishop of Armagh for
charity, and no account given. The Ulster
bishops were mostly ignorant and greedy Scotchmen,
for ever quarrelling with all the other
planters about their church possessions, and not
always getting the best of the quarrels either.
This is what we read in one place in the Patent
Rolls: “King’s Letter to the Lord Deputy to
confirm Andrew Moneypenny in the Archdeaconry
of Connor by putting in force all the
orders made by Lord Viscount Grandison against
Nicholas Todd, a tailor by profession, an unlearned
man, placed in that situation by his
unworthy brother John Todd, late Bishop of
Down and Connor, and deprived of said dignity
for notorious causes, both of insufficiency of
learning and corruption in manners.” Chichester
as usual impresses us as seeing into these abuses
in a clearer and more sensible way than the rest
of the Castle set of that time. We find him
writing to the Lord Justice and Davies about
religion, when he says all is confused and out
.bn 052.png
.pn +1
of order, as if it were in a wilderness where
neither Christianity nor religion was ever heard
of. He says, “the Bishops claim too much land
and have too little.” He wishes the king would
make a new allotment, as if in a new Plantation
in America. The state of Munster was even
worse, owing to the rapacity of the notorious
Miler Magrath, who bled immense numbers of
parishes for his children. In Mullognony or
Newchapel, County Tipperary, (where I was
rector from 1895 to 1898) Miler’s son Terence
had got the profits of the prebend from the
nominal incumbent, who was in such a wretched
state that in 1607 Terence Magrath had to give
him a cloak to present himself before the Commission
that enquired into the abuses. The
undertakers, not, I suppose, seeing that the
Established Church was making much way, with
its grasping Bishops and ruined churches, and
absentee ministers, opposed the episcopal claims
with all the ardour of Wee Free Kirkmen
appealing to the House of Lords, and in a great
many cases imported Presbyterian ministers
from Scotland. So we can see that even if the
native element had been willing to conform,
there was practically no established religion for
them to join. James began to recognise this
when too late in the day, and there is an amusing
.bn 053.png
.pn +1
State Paper in which we see a patent plan
of his, that young natives should be caught up,
and educated in Trinity College Dublin, to work
as Protestant clergymen among the natives, and
then if any livings of small value should become
vacant, they should be appointed to them.

It was twenty-seven years since a Parliament
had been held in Dublin, and when the Ulster
Plantation was finished it was decided to convene
one in 1613. The histories mostly say
that it was called to give legal sanction to the
Plantation; if so, it was a case of a late locking
of the stable door. It seems more likely that
the object, if any, of the Parliament was for
the dominant English party to triumph over the
fallen natives, and to pass Bills of a further intolerant
character. We can see in its constitution,
but in a more pronounced form than they
would have dared to show in England, symptoms
of the abuses and the arbitrary acts which culminated
in the total overthrow of the Stuart
dynasty. We shall follow the usual order of
that period, to execute first, and judge afterwards;
so first we shall look into the Parliament
and its doings, and then take a brief survey of
the subsequent enquiries into its constitution.

It was a most disorderly scene, especially
in its earliest stage. Each party had hoped for
.bn 054.png
.pn +1
a majority, but the numbers were slightly in
favour of the English party. These latter proposed
Davies as Speaker in the Lower House;
whereupon Sir James Gough, Sir Christopher
Nugent, and William Talbot, late Recorder of
Dublin, proposed Sir John Everard, late a judge
of the Queen’s Bench, but displaced by King
James on account of his religion. The affirmative
(the supporters of Davies) went out to be
numbered; the negative, as was the custom
then, remaining behind. But instead of letting
themselves be numbered, the Irish party proceeded
as if they were the whole house, chose
Everard, and put him in the chair. The Englishmen,
coming in and finding they numbered 125
in a house of 226, knew they had a majority,
and put Davies on Everard’s lap. The English
then began to remove Everard, by pulling at
his legs, while the Irish held him in his place
by the collar, Davies still sitting on his knees.
Sir John Everard was old and infirm; he was
got out of his place with only slight injuries to
his leg, whereupon the Irish members withdrew
altogether from the house. Then the Catholic
lords wrote to the king, and the Irish commoners
wrote to the Privy Council of England,
both complaining of the business about the
Speakership, and the legality of the new boroughs,
.bn 055.png
.pn +1
the members of the Lower House also
asking to be excused from attending. To the
Lords’ complaints answer was made that the
Commons’ business did not concern them, to
which they replied that though not in the Lower
House, they made yet but one body and one
Parliament. Then the Lord Deputy commanded
the Irish commoners to attend to pass the Act
of recognition of the King’s Title; upon which
they sent him a petition recognizing the King’s
Title, but utterly refusing to sit in the house,
unless their Speaker Everard was approved, and
the new burgesses rejected. The Lords now
acted similarly, and as the Irish element was
strong in Dublin, Parliament was adjourned to
the 27th of July, 1614.[#]

Looking at the matter from the standpoint of
mere legality, we are obliged to acknowledge
that the Irish party were in the wrong more
than once in these transactions. When they
had been left together for the purpose simply of
being numbered, they chose to ignore the other
party, and would not let themselves be counted,
but proceeded forcibly to put Everard in the
chair. Then, of course, the Lords were interfering
in a way that would not be allowed nowadays,
when they declined to go on till the
matters in the Commons had been settled. And
.bn 056.png
.pn +1
finally, if there were any illegalities in the new
boroughs (and there were many, as we shall
see), the correct thing, of course was for Parliament
first to meet, and then for any errors in
the returns to be dealt with. But we need not
blame the Irish party for these little blunders.
There had not been a meeting of Parliament for
a generation, and they went there in a high state
of tension and exasperation, first at the confiscations,
and then at the conduct of the returning
officers.

On the return of the Parliament, there was a
controversy about the precedence of the Lord
of Slane over the Lord of Kerry; this being
ended, Parliament passed ten Acts: An Act of
recognition of the King and his action in
Ulster, stating with delicate irony, that James
had established his government in the hearts of
his people. One removing benefit of clergy in
certain cases. Repeals of old Acts against
admitting and associating with Scots, and
against having commerce with the Irish enemies.
An Act of General Pardon. An Attainder of
Tyrone, Tyrconnell, Sir Cahir O’Dogherty and
others. And a subsidy. Sir R. Cox, who was a
violent Protestant, tells us, that on Chichester’s
being summoned to England, “Irish affairs were
so well managed by the Lord Deputy, that the
.bn 057.png
.pn +1
King was fully convinced of the seditious designs
of the Irish.”

When the recusant lords appealed to the
king, his reply was insolent and silly; it was
intended to drive them into further opposition.
It is not worth quoting. He admits that two
returns were proved false, and he foreshadowed
the future failures of the Stuart race by such
violent words as these, written to the noblemen:
“You that are of contrary religion must not look
to be the only law-makers. You that are but
half-subjects should have but half privilege;
you that have an eye to me one way and to the
Pope another way.”

Now let us turn to the Commission and its
findings.[#] They were directed not only to
inquire into the disputes about the elections,
but to find out if any of the elected members
could not speak English, and to find out whether
there were any combinations or conspiracies not
to elect Protestants, and to see if any Jesuits
or priests had any meddling in such matters.
They also were directed to see if any general
assessments and levies of money were made
without authority, and to report if the priests
and Jesuits were responsible; also to report
generally on abuses in Ireland; and on the
prospects of a Plantation in Wexford. The
.bn 058.png
.pn +1
names of the Commissioners were, Lord Chichester,
Sir Humphrey Winche, Sir Charles
Cornwallis, Sir Roger Wilbraham, and George
Calvert. They found that: In Armagh an Irish
freeholder and candidate was kept out by an
armed man at the door, upon which he, Henry
McShane O’Neale, withdrew with most of the
Irish freeholders. That in Cavan, Captain
Fleming, an Irish freeholder, had appealed to
the sheriff for an adjournment of nominations,
and had been given hopes of one, but,
the sheriff not adjourning, the Irish were not
represented at the election. In the King’s
County, the Irish candidates, one of whom could
not speak English, had the greater number of
names on their nomination paper, yet the under-sheriff
returned the two English candidates. In
this case two whose names were written down
for the Irish candidates, disavowed their signatures,
and another confessed to having put his
name on the list after the election was done,
and Sir Terence O’Dempsey gave his vote by
proxy. In Limerick it was questioned whether
the English or Irish candidates had the greater
number of freeholder votes; the sheriff did not
take the obvious course of numbering the freeholders,
but returned the Englishmen. He
denied that it was his duty to number the polls.
.bn 059.png
.pn +1
In Fermanagh, neither of the Irish candidates
responded to the Commissioners’ invitation to
be present, for good reasons: one could not
speak English, and the other “indicted for
treason, broke prison, and hath betaken himself
to the woods.” They found that at this election
Captain Gower did not pull Brian McGuire’s
beard from his face, but only shook him by the
beard. In Roscommon the Irish candidates’
witnesses seem to have been rejected, because
of their “speaking only the Irish language, and
being men of mean condition, as they seemed
to us.” In passing we may mention that two
of Sir John Everard’s supporters in Parliament
could only speak Irish. In Dublin, the Mayor
being absent, the recusants duly elected two
aldermen at the County Court; later the
Mayor proclaimed an election at Hoggin, when
two English candidates were nominated by the
Mayor. To see which had a majority, he made
the parties divide, and then, without counting
the polls, he declared the Englishmen, his nominees,
elected. In Trim there were two elections,
as there did not seem to be any proper authority
for fixing a date. In Kildare borough, the
sovereign returned two, whom the Commission
declared to be not elected, deciding that the
Irish candidates were returned. In Wicklow
.bn 060.png
.pn +1
there was a confusion between the reputed
portriff and the deputy-constable about the
proper date, and finally two English candidates
were returned. In Cavan, the sovereign and
inhabitants held an election, without waiting for
the sheriff’s permission, and declared two natives
elected. The Ulster men all resented the intrusion
of the sheriffs upon them.[#] Then the sheriff
directed his warrant to the sovereign, and
another election was held. The greater number
voted for the natives, yet the sovereign declared
the English candidates returned, though they
had fewer voices. The Commission here says:
“At this election Sir Oliver Lambert with a
little walking-stick, did strike one George Brady,
one of the inhabitants, for using towards him
some rude behaviour, and giving him some unfitting
speeches; and upon view by us, it did
not appear to us, that his head had been broken.”

They found there was a general combination
against electing Protestants; the reason being,
the natives believed laws would be propounded
concerning religion and for banishment of
priests. They found that the Roman Catholic
knights of the shire and burgesses levied contributions
to pay for sending their agents for
their appeal to England. And the moneys obtained
by the priests seem to have been dues of
.bn 061.png
.pn +1
the most ordinary kind. In fact, the dragging
in of the priests and Jesuits, first suggested in
James’s commands to the Commission, proved
to be a perfect mare’s nest. They found that
two burgesses were returned from Clogher,
which had never sent members before, and had
no charter to do so. The Commission then went
on to describe the disorderly scene at the meeting
of Parliament. It appeared that several of
the new corporations had no right to return
members, their charters bearing date after the
Commission for the holding of the Parliament,
and some after the summons to the Parliament.

After that, they go into the general grievances
of the country. Juries will not present recusants.
“The small number, less sufficiency, and
little residence of the ministers. The want and
defect of churches, either wholly ruined, or so
out of repair as to be unfit for the service of
God.” Remedy, to enforce the laws of conformity,
and to do away with idle and scandalous
ministers. The soldiers extort; officers take
money not to cess; the provost-marshal’s men
extort. The people are afraid to make complaint
for fear of worse impositions. The extortion
of clerks and multiplying of new offices.
The clearing out of Wexford for a new plantation;
some old freeholders restored to their
.bn 062.png
.pn +1
land or portion, but with some of the English
party holding it in trust for them; while 390
freeholders, and 14,500 other people “may be
removed at the will of the patentees, notwithstanding
few are yet removed.” For this plantation
a jury was appointed and found “ignoramus”
to the King’s title. They were bound
over to appear again, and then eleven agreed to
find for the title; but five, who refused, were
committed to prison, and censured in the Castle
Chamber. After that come figures about the
Wexford Plantation and the rent reserved, which
was £5 per 1,000 acres for the English, and
£6 6s. 8d. for the natives.

Here ends the Commissioners’ finding. It
was worded with caution, but we can see they
felt that the condition of Ireland was one of
gross misgovernment. In fact, it would be impossible
to feel anything else, if the subject
were dealt with from the point of view of legality.
Notice that no fault or crime was urged against
the native population except those violations of
the law which come from their adhesion to their
own views in politics and religion. On the
other hand, every constitutional law was being
broken by the misgovernors of the land. How
James could assert there were only illegalities
in the cases of two members of Parliament, it
.bn 063.png
.pn +1
is difficult to say. Even if the King’s County
case was doubtful, the Kildare case, the Cavan
case, and the Clogher case, would clearly make
six. Some of these findings, as about the military
impositions, and the Wexford peasantry
being tenants at will, must have been bitter
reading for Sir John Davies, who had written
so strongly against that sort of thing, and who,
though rapacious and heartless, may be fairly
described, in the writer’s humble opinion, as the
father of the Ulster custom.

The Commission, as far as it touched Parliamentary
matters, dealt only with the House of
Commons. The constitution of the House of
Lords was as bad. On the eve of the meeting
of the Parliament, on 31st March, 1613, a King’s
letter was issued to call to the Upper House by
writ, Lord Abercorn, Lord Henry Brian, son of
the Earl of Thomond, Lord Audley, Lord
Ochiltree, and Lord Burleigh. The letter also
said if the right of Lord Barry, Viscount Buttevant
was questioned because he had an elder
brother who is deaf and dumb, the question was
to be silenced by the king’s commandment,
because of his dutiful behaviour, and because he
had enjoyed the title for many years without
contradiction. A letter in the Carew Papers
shows that Lord Henry Brian or O’Brien was
.bn 064.png
.pn +1
summoned because he was a Protestant, where
we also read that Lord Athenrie, who was too
poor to attend, was to be induced to give his
proxy to some Protestant lord.[#]

A good many of the intended mushroom boroughs
came to nothing. Virginia was meant to
be a borough, but was never incorporated.
Charlestown and Jamestown were intended to
be the county towns respectively of the counties
of Roscommon and Leitrim, but the ill-omened
names have disappeared from our maps, though
the village of Jamestown became a pocket
borough, returning two members till the
Union.[#]

It may be necessary to mention that the
colonization of Down and Antrim are quite
separate matters. About the beginning of the
fifteenth century, the MacDonnells, Lords of
the Isles, came to Antrim, and in 1584 a thousand
Scottish highlanders, called “Redshanks,”
of the septs of the Cambiles, MacDonnells and
Magalanes, led by Surleboy, a Scottish chieftain,
invaded Ulster. And early in James’s reign
some English from Devon were brought over
by Chichester and settled in Carrickfergus
and Malone, near Belfast. These formed the
Planters of Antrim; and Down was colonized
through the interference of a laird named Montgomery.
.bn 065.png
.pn +1
Con O’Neill had got into trouble with
the Government, and his wife (a lady of great
abilities, and a sister of Brian MacArt and half-sister
of Owen Roe MacArt) appealed to Montgomery
to help him to secure his pardon.
Montgomery did secure it; but with the result
that the patent for his share of Con’s land specified
that the lands should be planted by British
undertakers, and that no grants of fee-farms
should be given to any of Irish extraction.[#]
Then James Hamilton came in and got a share,
Con, Hamilton and Montgomery having one-third
each. In 1606 O’Neill had to part with
his property, giving it up to Montgomery. The
latter founded Newtown (or Newtownards),
Donaghadee, Comber and Grey-Abbey; and
Hamilton founded Bangor, Holywood, Killileagh,
and Ballywalter. So these wily Scotchmen
got practically the whole of the County
Down; and the Scotch settlers who came over
in hundreds filled up the land. The barony of
Iveagh, which contained so much highlands, was
held by the Magenises. They seem to have
been astute enough. Though often law-breakers,
they did not transgress politically, and
when the barony was specially settled in 1617
they got most of the land in Iveagh, and they
had only to pay twice as much as the English.[#]
.bn 066.png
.pn +1
Here is a brief contemporary description of the
head of the family. “Sir Hugh McEnys was
the civilest of all the Irishry of those parts. He
was brought by Sir Nicholas Bagnall from the
Bonaghe of the O’Neyles to contribute to the
Queen. In this place only amongst the Irish
of Ulster is the rude custom of tanistship put
away. Maginis is able to make 60 horsemen
and 80 footmen. Every festival day he wears
English garments.”

Besides the Ulster counties, in this reign
there were also plantations of King’s County
and Longford at a rent to the Crown of 2½d.
per acre for pasture land, and ½d per acre for
bog and wood, Wexford at rent 1¼d. per acre,
Upper Ossory (Queen’s County) at 3d. per acre.
Westmeath and Cork. There were also grants
in Meath and Louth; but, though large, they
hardly professed to be the basis of a plantation.

Many continental immigrants became naturalized
in Ireland in this reign; they hailed
mostly from Antwerp and Brabant.[#]

Now what has the introduction of the North
Britons done for Ireland? It has added complications
to the religious problems of the country,
by adding a third element. To all who study
the history of Ireland, it tends to increase the
sense of injustice and wrong, to see how the
.bn 067.png
.pn +1
North and its industries have always been pampered
for the three centuries intervening. It has
not tended to the consolidation of the Empire,
for every Ulster so-called “Loyalist” is a Home
Ruler of a type of his own, for he approaches
all Imperial problems from a local point of view.
In the troublous times when political convulsions
come in Belfast, as in 1886 and 1892, the
most hated class of men is found to be the
body that is representative of law and order,
the Royal Irish Constabulary. Ulster is loyal
as long as she gets her own way. Her good
temper is very like what Sir Antony Absolute
says of himself, “You know I am compliance
itself—when I am not thwarted; no one more
easily led—when I have my own way.” Her
vices are worse than the traditional vices of
the rest of the land. In morality the South and
West of Ireland people are superior; while in
temperance, it may at least be said they are not
inferior. The virtues of Ulster are economy
and industry and determination. They have an
unreasoning decision, a blind enthusiasm, in
political and religious matters that carries them
along in a way that will never be copied by the
more thoughtful and more depressed Southern.
Ulster has shown the rest of Ireland that, however
attractive the land may be, it is well to
.bn 068.png
.pn +1
have trades and industries that do not depend,
or only depend partly on the land. The crowning
merit of James’s work in Ulster is that there
is one part of the country where landlord and
tenant, squire and labourer, think very much
alike in religion and politics, so that a good
understanding should be looked for between the
various parties. Had he left Tyrone and Tyrconnell
and O’Dogherty with their vassals, the
same result would have been arrived at, without
all the unconstitutional things I have referred
to. Unconstitutional! We have seen the beginning
of the Stuart rule; we know how it
ended.

And in the struggles that intervened,
Ulster was invariably against the Crown. To
the English and Scotch squatters, and the Irish
Society, were given arable and pasture lands,
fishings, courts leet and baron, ferries, bishoprics
and livings, mountain-lands and bogs,
courts of pie-powder, exemptions, titles, licences
to beg, recusants’ fines, wardships and marriages
of minors, charters of the staple, customs on
tobacco-pipes, and monopolies of all kinds, and
in a few score years the grandchildren of these
favoured persons made themselves famous by
their bitter opposition to James’s grandson.
Thus the whirligig of time brings its revenges.
.bn 069.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.pb
.sp 2
.h3
Notes
.sp 2
.pm fn-start // 1
Tract by Sir Thomas Smith on the Colonisation
of Ards, in Co. Down, 1572.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 2
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, 1 James I., lxx., 22, Dorso,
p. 5.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 3
See <i>The Broken Sword of Ulster</i>, by R. Cuninghame.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 4
<i>State Papers, Ireland</i> (1609), p. 330, (1608),
pp. 108, 109.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 5
Plowden’s <i>History</i>, I., p. 341.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 6
<i>Calendar State Papers, Ireland</i> (1608-10),
Preface.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 7
<i>Broken Sword of Ulster</i>, p. 153, &c. For the
earlier plots of Mountjoy against Tyrone, see
Docwra’s <i>Narrative</i>, Celtic Society’s <i>Miscellany</i>,
Notes, p. 315.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 8
<i>State Papers, Ireland</i> (1608), p. 31.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 9
<i>State Papers, Ireland</i> (1608), Preface, p. xli.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 10
Celtic Society’s <i>Miscellany</i>, Docwra’s <i>Narrative</i>,
Notes, p. 315.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 11
<i>Carew Papers</i>, “Discourse for the Reformation
of Ireland” (1583). See also Sir J. Perrott’s
Proposals, same vol., II., p. 368; II., p. 415.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 12
Hill, <i>Plantation of Ulster</i>, p. 222.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 13
<i>State Papers, Ireland</i> (1607) Preface, p. lvii.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 14
Enrolled <i>Patent Rolls</i>, 16 James I., pp. 419, 420.
.pm fn-end

.bn 070.png
.pn +1

.pm fn-start // 15
<i>History</i>, Vol. II., p. 14.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 16
<i>Broken Sword of Ulster</i>, pp. 153, 168.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 17
P. 313. Note.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 18
<i>Broken Sword of Ulster</i>, p. 179.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 19
MacNevin (<i>Confiscation of Ulster</i>, p. 137,
note) says the Irish had to pay £10 13s. 4d. for 60
acres. He does not state how he gets at this
fact. The grants to the natives seem to have
been at the rate of £1 1s. 4d. for 100 acres,
which would work out at £10 13s. 4d. for 1,000.
(See <i>Patent Rolls</i>, James I., passim.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 20
Rev. George Hill, <i>Montgomery MS.</i>, p. 55,
note. <i>Patent Rolls</i>, 14 James I., lxiii., 4, Dorso,
and 15 James I., xll., 3, Dorso.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 21
<i>Patent Rolls, Ireland</i>, 19 James I., Part II.,
xvii., 41.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 22
<i>State Papers, Ireland</i> (1609), p. 196.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 23
Hill, <i>Plantation of Ulster</i>, pp. 220, 223.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 24
Hill, <i>Plantation Papers</i>, p. 77.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 25
<i>Plantation Papers</i>, p. 77.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 26
<i>Carew Papers</i>, p. 228.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 27
<i>Plantation Papers</i>, pp. 13, 14.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 28
Hill, <i>Plantation of Ulster</i>. See Sir J. Davies’
letter to Salisbury, 27th June, 1609, about Sir
Neale. When the jury were found to be favourable
to him they were dismissed by a trick. Davies
recommends to have him tried by a jury in
Middlesex, or kept till the colonies of English or
Scotch may be planted in Tyrconnell.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 29
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, II James I.; 5 lv., 31, p. 250.
14, March 10th. See pp. 257, 293. <i>Carew MS.</i>,
pp. 49, 88; <i>State Papers, Ireland</i> (1609), pp. 264,
299; (1610), p. 416.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 30
<i>State Papers</i> (1610), pp. 502, 503.
.pm fn-end

.bn 071.png
.pn +1

.pm fn-start // 31
<i>Plantation Papers</i>, p. 96.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 32
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, 20 James I., Part III., lxii.,
27 Dorso.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 33
<i>Plantation Papers</i>, p. 29. An early and unsuccessful
attempt to plant had been made on Sir
Oghie O’Hanlon’s land in 1569; it had been taken
from him and given to Captain Chatterton. Chatterton
was killed, and as nobody would venture
to plant the land, it was restored to O’Hanlon.
An interesting proclamation of Carew’s in 1603,
on the subject of the rate of wages in the North
of Ireland, is given in <i>Plantation Papers</i>, p. 79.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 34
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, 12 James I., I., viii., 2. Lady
O’Dogherty was about to proceed to London in
pursuit of relief, and as Chichester found that her
marriage money had never been paid by her
brother, Lord Gormanstown, he got the king to
give her £40 a year during pleasure out of the
rents of Inishowen. <i>State Papers</i> (1609), p. 216.
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, 14 James I., lxxxii., 14 Dorso, Part
I., and 14 James I., vi., 8, Part 2, Facie.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 35
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, James I., pp. 48, 443. <i>Plantation
Papers</i>, pp. 19, 190, 119.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 36
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, James I., pp. 312, 314. <i>Plantation
Papers</i>, pp. 19, 119, 190.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 37
Reid, <i>Presbyterianism in Ulster</i>, I., pp. 103,
104.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 38
Prendergast, <i>Ireland from the Restoration to
the Revolution</i> (1660-1690), p. 98.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 39
Hill, <i>Plantation Papers</i>, p. 67, ff.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 40
<i>Plantation Papers</i>, pp. 26, 189.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 41
See <i>Patent Rolls</i>, passim; <i>Carew Papers</i>,
p. 227; <i>Plantation Papers</i>, p. 52.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 42
Sir R. Cox, <i>History</i>, II., p. 29. <i>Plantation
Papers</i>, p. 64.
.pm fn-end
.bn 072.png
.pn +1

.pm fn-start // 43
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, 14 James I., Part I., cvi., 27
Dorso.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 44
<i>Plantation Papers</i>, p. 146.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 45
See <i>Patent Rolls</i>, James I., pp. 492, 512,
532, &c.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 46
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, James I., pp. 455, 473.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 47
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, 11 James I., 5, cv., 17 Dorso;
18 James I., lxxxvii., 37 Dorso; pp. 314, 555. 22
James I., cxiv., 47 Dorso. <i>State Papers</i> (1610),
pp. 31, 64, 391. See also the Inquiry into the
state of Dioceses of Cashel and Emly and Waterford
and Lismore in the <i>State Papers</i>. <i>Patent
Rolls</i>, 18 James I., xxxiv., 6 Dorso.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 48
Sir R. Cox’s <i>History</i>; <i>Plowden</i>; and the report
of Commission mentioned below and printed
in the <i>Patent Rolls</i>. The fullest account is by
Cox, where the Acts of the Parliament and the
King’s letter to the remonstrant Lords are described.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 49
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, 16 James I., pp. 369-401.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 50
Camden’s <i>Ireland</i>, pp. 123, 125.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 51
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, 11 James I., lxv., 36 Facie.
<i>Carew Papers</i>, p. 147.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 52
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, 10 James I., 1, v. 7 Facie.
20 James I., xlii., 11 Dorso. See Lewis’s <i>Topographical
Dictionary of Ireland</i>.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 53
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, James I., p. 236.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 54
<i>Patent Rolls</i>, 16 James I., xv., Dorso. <i>State
Papers, Ireland</i> (1608), 10, Preface, p. xi.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 55
While these people were coming over from
Belgium, it is of interest to note that as well as at
Louvain, there was an Irish College at Tournai in
1607. <i>State Papers</i> (1607), p. 230.
.pm fn-end

.bn 073.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.pb
.sp 4
.nf c
STRAFFORD

PART I

THE GRACES

<sc>By</sc> PHILIP WILSON
.nf-
.bn 074.png
.pn +1
.bn 075.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.pb
.sp 4
.nf c
Strafford
.nf-
.sp 4
.h2
PART I||<sc>The Graces</sc>
.sp 2
<sc>The</sc> reign of James the First had been, if we
except one petty and insignificant outbreak in
Ulster, a period of tranquillity for Ireland; and,
at the accession of his son, the prospects of the
country might have seemed to a superficial observer
more promising than they had yet been.
But, in fact, the ostensibly pacific and constitutional
measures of James had produced results
more disastrous, and aroused animosities more
enduring than even the exterminating policy of
his predecessor. Henry Carey, Lord Falkland,
who three years earlier had succeeded Grandison
as Lord Deputy, was at this time confronted
with two problems which have since taxed to
the uttermost the abilities of many wiser and
more resolute men than he. During the preceding
reign the laws which prohibited the
exercise of the Roman Catholic religion had
been fitfully and spasmodically enforced. Minorities
have often been dragooned into conformity;
but it is not easy by such means to
.bn 076.png
.pn +1
change the religion of an entire nation; and
the dread of a rebellion in Ireland, no less than
the necessity of maintaining friendly relations
with foreign Catholic powers, repeatedly led the
English Government to place a curb upon the
frantic zeal of the ascendancy party at Dublin.
The latter consideration had recently derived
additional force from the marriage of Charles,
then Prince of Wales, to a Catholic princess;
and, on the accession of the young king, the co-religionists
of his consort began, not unnaturally,
to hope for something more than the precarious
and extra-legal toleration which was all that
they had hitherto enjoyed. On the other hand,
the fact that the king was disposed to treat the
Catholics with leniency was in itself enough to
inflame the hostility of the Puritan party, which
comprised the majority of the English middle
class and had already obtained the ascendancy
in at least the Lower House of Parliament.
To satisfy the wishes of the Irish without raising
a storm in England was a task beyond the
abilities of either Falkland or his master.

A still more serious source of discontent was
to be found in the general sense of insecurity
which pervaded the Irish gentry. During the
last years of James’s reign, the precedent which
had been set in Ulster had been followed on a
.bn 077.png
.pn +1
smaller scale in Leitrim, Longford, Wexford,
and King’s County. All those counties, or
parts of them, had, at some time since the
Norman invasion, been occupied by English
colonists, who had afterwards been driven out
by the original inhabitants. During many generations
the latter had remained in undisturbed
possession; but few of them had taken the
trouble to obtain title-deeds which would be
valid by English law—a science of whose mysteries
they were profoundly ignorant. If in a few
instances such documents had once existed,
they had generally been lost or destroyed during
the long period of anarchy and civil war. It
was now decided that these gentlemen, being
unable to produce satisfactory title-deeds, were
intruders upon the estates of the Anglo-Norman
adventurers who had despoiled their ancestors
some centuries before; and, when the heirs of
the latter were not forthcoming, the lands, in
default of any other claimant, were adjudged to
have lapsed to the Crown.[#]

The alarm and indignation to which these
proceedings naturally gave rise were especially
great in the western province. During the last
three reigns a series of confiscations had been
carried out in Leinster, Munster and Ulster, but
the Connaught landowners had hitherto escaped
.bn 078.png
.pn +1
spoliation, and they had very lately obtained
for their estates a security which, it might have
been thought, would have proved a barrier
against the rapacity of the most unscrupulous
government. In 1585 Sir John Perrott, then
Lord Deputy, had effected an arrangement,
known as the “Composition of Connaught,” by
which the gentlemen of that province were
secured in the possession of their estates; but,
owing probably to the troubles which not long
afterwards broke out in Ulster, the formalities
necessary in order to give validity to this transaction
were never carried out. In the thirteenth
year of his reign, however, James consented, in
consideration of a bribe of £3,000, to issue a
commission remedying this defect. The Irish
gentry loyally performed their part of the agreement;
but, owing to some negligence, or, more
probably, some trickery on the part of the
officials of the Court of Chancery, the patents
were incorrectly enrolled, and were afterwards
pronounced by interested and unscrupulous
lawyers to be null and void. Shortly before the
death of James it began to be rumoured that the
Government intended to avail themselves of
this technical irregularity in order to establish
a Plantation in Connaught on the model of the
Plantation of Ulster. The rumour, as might
.bn 079.png
.pn +1
have been expected, excited the most painful
apprehensions in Ireland; but no actual steps
had been taken towards the Plantation when
the king died.[#]

Charles was not altogether indisposed to treat
his Irish subjects with fairness; but his strongest
desire, then as always, was to secure a revenue
which would render him independent of the
English Parliament. The Irish Catholics, on
their side, were willing enough to contribute to
the relief of the king’s necessities, if by so doing
they might obtain toleration for their religion
and security for their estates. The first act of
the young sovereign was admirably calculated
to attract the popular goodwill. By a statute
of the second year of Elizabeth, all mayors,
sheriffs, and other municipal officers were required
to take the Oath of Supremacy; but,
owing to the scarcity of Protestants, the law,
except in Ulster, had generally been a dead
letter. In 1618, however, Sir Oliver St. John
had procured the forfeiture of the charter of
Waterford—a city which had persistently elected
recusant magistrates.[#] As an earnest of the
royal favour this charter was now restored, and,
to the scandal of zealous Protestants, a Roman
Catholic mayor was once more installed in
office.[#]
.bn 080.png
.pn +1

A few days later, Falkland, acting under instructions
received from England, convened an
assembly of the Irish nobility and gentry to consider
the measures to be taken to relieve the
financial embarrassments of the Government,
and to hear the concessions which the king was
willing to make in return for their assistance.[#]
But an unexpected obstacle intervened. Justly
conceiving that the proposed concessions would
put an end to the monopoly hitherto enjoyed by
their sect, the Protestant prelates, with Archbishop
Usher at their head, drew up and published
a “Judgment concerning toleration in
religion,” which may be commended to the attention
of those pious persons who are accustomed
to declaim against the bigotry of the Vatican.

“The religion of the Papists is superstitious
and idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous
and heretical; their Church, in respect of
both, apostatical. To give them, therefore, a
toleration, or to consent that they may freely
exercise their religion and profess their faith
and doctrine is a grievous sin, and that in two
respects. For,

“First. It is to make ourselves accessory, not
only to their superstitious idolatries and heresies,
and, in a word, to all the abominations of
Popery, but also, which is a consequent of the
.bn 081.png
.pn +1
former, to the perdition of the seduced people
which perish in the deluge of the Catholic
apostacy. Secondly. To grant them a toleration
in respect of any money to be given, or contribution
to be made by them, is to set religion
to sale, and with it the souls of the people whom
Christ our Saviour hath redeemed with His Most
Precious Blood. And as it is a great sin, so it is
also a matter of most dangerous consequence,
the consideration whereof we commit to the
wise and judicious, beseeching the God of truth
to make them who are in authority zealous of
God’s glory, and of the advancement of true
religion: zealous, resolute and courageous
against all Popery, superstition, and idolatry.
Amen.”[#]

A little later Downham, Bishop of Derry,
preaching before the Lord Deputy, denounced
toleration in still more unmeasured terms. These
outbursts of episcopal intolerance aroused the
sympathy of the English House of Commons,
who passed a resolution: “That the Popish religion
is publicly professed in every part of
Ireland, and that monasteries and nunneries are
there newly erected and replenished with
votaries of both sexes, which will be of evil
consequence unless seasonably repressed.”[#]

The opposition of the Protestant bishops in
.bn 082.png
.pn +1
Ireland and of their English sympathisers retarded
for a considerable time the progress of
the negotiations between the Government and
the recusants; but in the spring of 1628 the
agents of the latter had a personal interview
with Charles at Whitehall, when an agreement
was arrived at which, it was hoped, would prove
satisfactory to all parties. In one important
particular the concessions which were now promised
were less liberal than those which in the
preceding year the Catholics had been led to
expect. Charles had then been willing to consent
to the repeal of the Act which imposed a
fine of one shilling on persons absent from the
Protestant parish churches on Sundays. Out
of deference, probably, to the protest of the episcopate,
this concession was now withdrawn. But,
in spite of this omission, “the Graces,” as they
were called, were well calculated to redress the
most serious grievances of the Irish. A new
oath of a purely civil character was substituted
for the Oath of Supremacy, and recusants were
thus enabled to sue their liveries and to practise
at the bar without fear of molestation. An
undisturbed occupancy of sixty years was to
afford a prescriptive title against all older
claims of the Crown. The deficiencies in the
titles of the Connaught landowners were to be
.bn 083.png
.pn +1
supplied by an Act of the Parliament which, it
was expected, would be shortly summoned.
Other grievances of a more general kind, which
affected Protestants no less than Catholics,
were also remedied. In return for these concessions
the Irish agents undertook to raise a
“voluntary contribution” of £120,000, to be
paid in quarterly instalments ranging over three
years.[#]

It was arranged that the Irish Parliament
should meet in November. The writs were
issued, and some, at least, of the elections had
actually taken place, when the English Council
discovered that by summoning a Parliament
without having first transmitted to England a
statement of the Bills which it would have to
consider, the Lord Deputy had been guilty of a
technical violation of Poynings’ Act. The writs
were accordingly cancelled, and the holding of
the Parliament indefinitely postponed.[#] In spite
of this disappointment the Irish, who had not
yet fathomed the duplicity of their sovereign,
paid the first instalments of the contribution
with punctuality and were rewarded with a less
rigorous execution of the penal statutes.

Falkland did not long retain office after this
humiliating rebuff. The embarrassments which
Charles anticipated from the promise of concessions
.bn 084.png
.pn +1
which he was already anxious to evade
made him eager to entrust the government of
Ireland to stronger and more resolute hands,
and a popular pretext was soon found for the
recall of the obnoxious Deputy. During the
reign of James, Falkland, urged on by Sir
William Parsons, afterwards the notorious Lord
Justice, had attempted to despoil a sept named
O’Byrne by the kind of legal jugglery which
was then fashionable, but had met with unexpected
opposition from the English Government,
which was beginning to entertain doubts
of the merits of the Plantation system. A few
years later he discovered, or professed to have
discovered, a formidable conspiracy in which the
O’Byrnes were involved. Phelim O’Byrne, the
head of the sept, and his six sons were arrested,
tried by a jury composed partly of their hereditary
enemies, and partly of persons who
coveted their estates, convicted and imprisoned,
and their lands divided among English adventurers.
In this transaction Falkland had
received the support of a majority of the council
with Lord Cork at their head, but had been
opposed by a minority, among whom the
Chancellor, Lord Loftus of Ely, and Sir Francis
Annesley, afterwards Lord Mountnorris, were
the most conspicuous. Neither Loftus nor
.bn 085.png
.pn +1
Mountnorris were men of unblemished character,
and their opposition to the Lord Deputy
was probably due at least as much to personal
jealousy as to any disinterested sympathy with
his victims; but to whatever motives it is to
be ascribed, there can be no doubt that their
conduct was in this instance fully justified. In
the autumn of 1628 these gentlemen induced
Charles to institute an inquiry into the means
by which the evidence against the O’Byrnes had
been obtained. Falkland protested, but his protests
were disregarded. It soon transpired that
his Excellency had had good reason to desire
concealment. The original accusers of the
O’Byrnes turned out to have been criminals
under sentence of death who had been released
on undertaking to swear as the Lord Deputy
desired. More respectable witnesses deposed
that they had been compelled by torture to corroborate
the evidence thus obtained. In consequence
of this inquiry the O’Byrnes were
released, but their lands were not restored to
them.[#]

This exposure effectually destroyed what
little reputation Falkland had left. In January,
1629, it was decided to recall him; but it was
not until the following August that he surrendered
the sword, having a few months previously
.bn 086.png
.pn +1
issued a proclamation declaring that “the late
intermission of legal proceedings against Popish
pretended or titulary archbishops, bishops,
abbots, deans, vicars-general, Jesuits, friars and
others of that sort, that derive their pretended
authority and orders from the see of Rome,
hath bred such an extraordinary intolerance and
presumption in them as that they have dared
here of late not only to assemble themselves in
public places to celebrate their superstitious
services in all parts of this kingdom, but also
have erected houses and buildings called public
oratories, colleges, mass-houses, and convents of
friars, monks and nuns in the eye and open view
of the State, and, by colour of teaching and
keeping schools in their pretended monasteries
and colleges, do train up the youth of this kingdom
in their superstitious religion, to the great
degradation and contempt of his Majesty’s regal
power and authority”; and commanding them
in his Majesty’s name thenceforth to “forbear
to preach, teach, or celebrate their service in any
church, chapel, or other public oratory or place,
or to teach any school in any place or places
whatsoever within this kingdom.”[#]

After the dismissal of Falkland the administration
of Irish affairs was entrusted to Lord
Chancellor Loftus and to the Earl of Cork as
.bn 087.png
.pn +1
Lords Justices. Adam Loftus, grandson and
namesake of the first Protestant Archbishop of
Dublin, brought to his high office an inherited
instinct for peculation, which he transmitted in
undiminished splendour to his descendants.[#]
His colleague was in every respect a more remarkable
man. Born at Canterbury in 1566
Richard Boyle came to Ireland at an early age
with twenty-seven pounds in his pocket; obtained,
by means of letters of introduction which
were afterwards discovered to have been forged,
one of those subordinate posts in the government
of which the direct emoluments were small,
but which afforded boundless opportunities for
illegitimate gain; and, in the confiscations which
followed the Desmond war, acquired one of the
largest estates in Munster. Like most of the
Munster planters he was for a while ruined by
Tyrone’s rebellion, but more fortunate than
many better men, eventually regained more than
he had lost. In 1598 he was examined before
the English Privy Council on a charge of holding
treasonable correspondence with Spain; but,
though his defence can scarcely be regarded as
convincing, he succeeded, with his customary good
fortune, not merely in outwitting his accusers but
in recommending himself to the favour of his
sovereign. During the reign of James, Boyle
.bn 088.png
.pn +1
throve rapidly, and not only rose to some of the
highest places in the State but built up a colossal
fortune, which his family motto ascribed to
the providence of God, but which, in the general
estimation of his contemporaries, might be traced
to a very different source. His uniform severity
towards the Catholics has won for him from a
certain school of historians the praise of exemplary
piety; but an impartial student of his
political career will probably pronounce him an
unscrupulous adventurer, whose zeal against
Popery sprang in large measure from a desire to
enrich himself at the expense of the Papists.[#]

The Lord Chancellor was not less fanatical
than his colleague; but, in spite of the identity
of their political opinions, the personal feud between
the two Lords Justices was so bitter that
the king was obliged to send a special agent
from England to compose it.[#] The reconciliation
thus effected was superficial, but the two
noblemen cordially co-operated in repressive
measures against the recusants. An incident
which took place not long afterwards throws a
curious light on the temper of the governing
faction and the precarious position of the Catholics.
In the autumn of 1629, according to a contemporary
Protestant writer, “the Romish
Catholics began to rant it in Ireland, and to
.bn 089.png
.pn +1
exercise their fancies called religion so publicly
as if they had gained a toleration. For, whilst
the Lords Justices were at church in Dublin on
St. Stephen’s day, they were celebrating Mass,
which the Lords Justices taking notice of, they
sent the Archbishop of Dublin, the mayor,
sheriffs and recorder of the town to apprehend
them, which they did, taking away the crucifixes,
chalices and paraments of the altar, the soldiers
hewing down the image of St. Francis. The
priests and friars were delivered into the hands
of the pursuivants, at whom the people threw
stones and rescued them. The Lords Justices,
informed of this, sent a guard and delivered
them, and clapt eight Popish aldermen by the
heels for not attending their mayor. Upon the
account of this presumption fifteen houses, by
direction from the Lords of the Council here,
were seized to the King’s use, and the friars and
priests so persecuted as two hanged themselves
in their own defence.”[#] The persecution,
which had begun in the capital, was rapidly
extended throughout the country. During the
next three years numerous monasteries and convents
were dissolved. In the summer of 1630,
a university which the Catholics, who were excluded
from Trinity College by the Oath of
Supremacy, had recently erected for their own
.bn 090.png
.pn +1
use, was suppressed, and its revenues transferred
to its Protestant rival. Two years later a shrine
of St. Patrick in Lough Derg, which was much
frequented by pilgrims, and was regarded by
the people with a veneration no less national
than religious, was, by order of the Lords
Justices, dug up and destroyed.[#]

These oppressive proceedings were, no doubt,
acceptable to the English Council; but in other
respects the administration of the Lords Justices
could not be considered satisfactory. A Parliament
was again promised, and again postponed.
By the beginning of 1632 the revenue showed
a deficit, the pay of the troops was in arrear, the
coast was exposed to the attacks of Moorish
pirates, and the public buildings—arsenals,
churches, even Dublin Castle itself—were everywhere
in decay. The voluntary contribution
would soon be at an end, and it was unlikely
that the Catholics, who had begun to suspect
the king’s sincerity in the matter of the Graces,
would consent to renew it. Their lordships
could think of no means of meeting expenses
except the enforcement of the shilling fines.[#]

Such was the condition of affairs when
Thomas Wentworth assumed the government of
Ireland. His appointment bears date January,
1632, but it was not until the middle of the
.bn 091.png
.pn +1
succeeding year that he proceeded to Dublin.[#]
Before leaving England he had contrived with
characteristic dexterity to relieve the financial
embarrassments of the Government. Cork and
Loftus had, as we have seen, been anxious to
exact the recusancy fines. Wentworth took care
that their wishes should be generally known.
He then despatched an agent, himself a Catholic,
to negociate secretly with his co-religionists.
This gentleman informed the leading recusants
that the Lord Deputy was averse to persecution,
but that, if no other means could be devised for
the relief of the king’s necessities, he would be
compelled to act upon the Lords Justices’ advice.
Alarmed at this intimation and eager to conciliate
one who might prove either a dangerous
enemy or a most valuable friend, the Catholics
agreed to levy an additional “voluntary contribution”
of £20,000. The Protestants, who
were wholly dependent on the Government, did
not venture to resist.[#]

The sum thus obtained was sufficient for his
immediate requirements; but, in order that the
finances might be placed on a satisfactory basis,
it was necessary that the Irish Parliament, which
had not met for nearly twenty years, should be
again summoned. The step was certain to be
popular, and Wentworth was eager to take it;
.bn 092.png
.pn +1
but it was difficult to convince Charles, whose
experience of Parliamentary government in
England had not been happy, of its wisdom.
The Lord Deputy, who prided himself, not
without reason, upon his powers of parliamentary
management, explained with great frankness
the course which he intended to adopt. As
soon as the Houses met they were to be informed
that business would be extended over two
sessions; the first of which was to be devoted
to the relief of the king’s necessities, and the
second to “the enacting of all such profitable
and wholesome laws as a moderate and good
people may expect from a wise and gracious
king.” With the hope of a ratification of the
Graces thus dangled before them, the Commons
might be relied upon to grant supplies for the
next three years; and when the money had been
voted the Government could fulfil as much or as
little of their engagements as they found convenient.
His Majesty had no reason to be
afraid of any dangerous exhibition of Parliamentary
independence. Apart from the restrictions
imposed by Poynings’ Act, which made the
Irish Parliament a mere instrument for registering
the decrees of the English Privy Council,
that body was so constituted as to be wholly at
the mercy of the Castle. In the Upper House
.bn 093.png
.pn +1
the bishops and the English adventurers who
had been ennobled during the preceding reign
gave the Government a permanent majority over
the old national aristocracy. The management
of the Lower House would be more difficult;
but Wentworth undertook to secure a majority
by tampering with the elections as Chichester
had done. In one respect his task differed from
Chichester’s. In 1613 the entire body of the
Protestants had been on the side of the Government,
and the Lord Deputy had been able to
make sure of a majority by multiplying boroughs
wherever the colonists predominated.
Since that date the breach between the court
party and the Puritans had grown wider, and a
large proportion of the new settlers were now
scarcely less hostile to the administration than
the Catholics. Wentworth had accordingly determined
so to manage the elections “as that
neither the recusants nor yet the Protestants
shall appear considerably more one than the
other, holding them as much as may be upon
an equal balance”; and at the same time to
procure the return from some of the smaller and
more corrupt constituencies of “captains and
officers, who, having immediate dependence upon
the Crown, may sway the business betwixt the
two parties which way they please.”[#] With
.bn 094.png
.pn +1
many misgivings Charles consented to the experiment.
“As to that hydra,” he wrote, “take
good heed, for you know I have here found it
cunning as well as malicious.” “I fear,” he
added, with an obvious recollection of his unlucky
promises, “they have some ground to
demand more than is fit for me to give.”[#]

In July, 1634, the Parliament met and the
Lord Deputy’s forecast was justified. The
Catholic and Protestant parties were almost
equal; the officers turned the scale in favour of
the latter. The result had not been arrived at
without some difficulty. The priests, who apprehended
fresh penalties against their religion, had
exerted themselves on behalf of the Catholic
candidates. Wentworth put his foot down upon
a policy which threatened to divide the country
into a Catholic and a Protestant party, a thing,
he wrote, “to be avoided as much as may be,
unless our numbers were the greater.” The
sheriff of Dublin “carried himself mutinously,”
or, in plain English, refused to foist the Lord
Deputy’s nominees upon an unwilling constituency.
The over-scrupulous official was
dragged before the Castle Chamber, fined, and
deprived of his office; a successor of more
accommodating principles was found, and his
Excellency’s protégés declared duly elected.[#]
.bn 095.png
.pn +1

On the 15th the Lord Deputy addressed the
Houses, warning them with characteristic arrogance
against imitating the factious conduct of
the late English Parliament. On the 16th his
secretary, Wandesford, moved for a grant of six
subsidies, which were immediately voted. On
the 2nd of August the Houses petitioned for
the introduction of the promised Bills, and were
informed that they would be considered in the
following session. On the 21st Parliament was
prorogued.[#]

It met again in November. During the recess
Wentworth had submitted to his master his
opinion of the course which it was expedient to
adopt with reference to the Graces. Some were
to be granted immediately, some others postponed;
the two most important—that which
established a prescriptive right against the
claims of the Crown, and that which supplied
the defects in the Connaught titles—were to be
firmly and finally refused. If his Majesty was unwilling
to incur the odium of so flagrant a breach
of faith, the Lord Deputy was ready to take
upon himself the responsibility of having intervened
between the people and the royal
favour.[#] To this magnanimous proposal
Charles assented with characteristic alacrity.[#]
On November 27th Wentworth announced the
.bn 096.png
.pn +1
withdrawal of the expected concessions. The
announcement provoked an outburst of indignation,
which was the more formidable because,
“by the negligence of the Protestant party,”
the Government were for the moment in a minority.
The Catholics, assisted by some discontented
Protestants, notably by Sir Piers Crosby,
a distinguished soldier and a member of the
Privy Council, “rejected hand over head all that
was offered them by his Majesty and the State.
The Bill against bigamy they would not should
be engrossed; the law for correction houses
they absolutely cast out; the law against fraudulent
conveyances and to secure purchasers
against the practised cozenage of the natives
here they would have none of; a law for the
bailments tasted not with them; the burgesses
that served for the new boroughs, being most
of them Protestants, they questioned, as not
having rights to sit there. The statutes of uses
and wills we durst not adventure a reading unto,
for fear some blemish might be put upon them
by these men, that in all these things never gave
or answered reason, but plainly let us see their
wills were set together to refuse all, but to refute
nothing.”

Wentworth acted with characteristic promptitude.
Crosby was deprived of his place at the
.bn 097.png
.pn +1
Privy Council, the absent members were ordered
to resume their attendance, and a ministerial
majority was again secured. Within little more
than a fortnight the Bills which the Lord
Deputy desired had been carried, and the Parliament
was once more prorogued.

In the following year two other short sessions
were held, and many wise and useful laws enacted
with the general concurrence of all parties.
The Lord Deputy was anxious that the Parliament
should be continued. The House of
Commons, he wrote, was “very well composed”;
there was a Protestant majority “clearly and
fully for the King,” and the recusants could be
coerced into voting as the Government dictated
by an intimation that the majority would otherwise
be used “to pass upon them all the laws
of England concerning religion.” If there was
a dissolution it might not be possible again to
manage the elections so successfully.[#] Charles,
however, in whose heart his English experience
still rankled, was of opinion that, supplies once
voted, the sooner a Parliament was sent about
its business the better. “Parliaments,” he wrote,
“are of the nature of cats, they ever grow curst
with age, so that, if you will have good of them,
put them off handsomely when they come to
any age, for young ones are ever most tractable.”[#]
.bn 098.png
.pn +1
The Lord Deputy was obliged to submit,
and the Parliament was dissolved.

As soon as the revenue had been placed on a
satisfactory basis Wentworth began to turn his
attention to the two great measures for which
his Irish administration is chiefly famous—the
Plantation of Connaught and the reform of the
English Church in Ireland. It was to the latter
subject that his attention was first directed. It
was certainly high time that something should
be done. It is difficult to say which stood in
more urgent need of improvement—the material
condition of the churches or the morals of the
clergy. In a letter to Laud, Wentworth graphically
sums up the situation: “An unlearned
clergy, which have not so much as the outward
form of churchmen to cover themselves with,
nor their persons anyway reverenced or protected;
the churches unbuilt; the parsonage
and vicarage houses utterly ruined; the people
untaught through the non-residency of the
clergy, occasioned by the unlimited shameful
numbers of spiritual promotions with cure of
souls, which they hold by commendams; the
rites and ceremonies of the Church run over
without all decency of habit, order, or gravity,
in the course of their service; the possessions
of the Church to a great proportion in lay
.bn 099.png
.pn +1
hands; the bishops aliening their very principal
houses and demesnes to their children, to
strangers, farming out their jurisdiction to mean
and unworthy persons; the Popish titulars
exercising the whilst a foreign jurisdiction much
greater than theirs; the schools, which might be
a means to season the youth in virtue and
religion, either ill-provided, ill-governed for the
most part, or, which is worse, applied sometimes
underhand to the maintenance of Popish school-masters:
lands given to these charitable uses,
and that in a bountiful proportion, especially by
King James of ever-blessed memory, dissipated,
leased forth for little or nothing, concealed, contrary
to all conscience and the excellent purposes
of the founder: the college here, which should
be the seminary of arts and civility in the elder
sort, extremely out of order, partly by means of
their statutes, which must be amended, and
partly under the government of a weak provost:
all the monies raised for charitable uses converted
to private benefices: many patronages
unjustly and by practice gotten from the
Crown.”[#]

There is abundant evidence that this disgraceful
picture was not in the least over-coloured.
Bedell, writing to Laud four years previously,
informed his correspondent that the parish
.bn 100.png
.pn +1
churches were “all in a manner ruined and unroofed
and unrepaired,” and that his diocese contained
only “seven or eight ministers of good
sufficiency, and which is no small cause of the
continuance of the people in Popery still,
English: which have not the tongue of the
people, nor can perform any divine offices, or
converse with them: and which hold, many of
them, two, three, four or more vicarages apiece:
even the clerkships themselves are in like manner
conferred upon the English: and sometimes
two or three or more upon one man, and ordinarily
bought and sold, or let to farm.”[#] Even
in 1638, in spite of the vigorous efforts of the
Lord Deputy, Leslie, Bishop of Down, found
the clergy generally negligent and disorderly,
and the churches “kept no better than hog-styes.”[#]

But even these were not in Wentworth’s eyes
the most serious of the abuses with which he
had to deal. A Protestant Church established
and maintained by the civil power in the midst
of an intensely Catholic people inclined by an
inevitable law towards an extreme and fanatical
form of Protestantism. It is not, therefore,
surprising that the Irish articles, which had
been drawn up by Usher, then professor of
divinity in Trinity College, Dublin, and adopted
.bn 101.png
.pn +1
by Convocation in 1615, should have been decidedly
more puritanical in tone than the Thirty-nine
Articles of the English Church.[#] “I
doubt much,” wrote Bramhall, “whether the
clergy be very orthodox.”[#] At the same
time, a great number of benefices continued
to be held by those whom the Lord Deputy and
the English Primate regarded as schismatics.
On the one hand the Catholic priesthood not
only continued to exercise their functions in
contempt of penalties which it was practically
impossible to enforce, but remained in many
places in possession of the churches.[#] On the
other hand, the Scotch settlers “brought with
them,” in the words of an Anglican historian,
“such a stock of Puritanism, such a contempt of
bishops, such a neglect of the public liturgy and
other divine offices of the Church, that there was
nothing less to be found amongst them than the
government and forms of worship established in
the Church of England.”[#] Ministers hostile to
the doctrines and discipline of the Establishment
had been frequently introduced into livings after
an irregular ordination by the influence of lay
patrons and the connivance of puritanical
bishops, and threatened to give at least as much
trouble to the ecclesiastical authorities as the
Catholics.[#] Attacked by Roman Catholics on
.bn 102.png
.pn +1
the one hand and by Presbyterians on the other,
the English Church in Ireland was still more
cruelly despoiled by the rapacious oligarchy who
yielded her a nominal allegiance. In the words
of Bramhall’s biographer, there was not one diocese
in the province of Cashel that had not “the
marks of the sacrilegious paw upon it.”[#] The
ecclesiastical courts, whose duty it was to remedy
these evils were in the hands of unprincipled
officials, who did little save plunder Catholics
and Protestants with complete impartiality.
“Among all the impediments to the work of
God amongst us,” Bedell wrote to Laud, “there
is not any greater than the abuse of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction.”[#] Bedell himself waged an unsparing
war upon abuses of all sorts; but he got
little support from his brethren. Archbishop
Usher sympathised, but was too timid to swim
against the stream.[#] The majority of the
bishops thought of nothing but their pockets.[#]

To this scandalous state of things Wentworth
was fully determined to put an end. His efforts
to abolish pluralities and absenteeism, to repair
the churches, and to restore to the clergy the
tithes which had been dishonestly appropriated
by laymen deserve high praise. But he had
another and less creditable object in view. He
wished to drive both the Puritan settlers and
.bn 103.png
.pn +1
the native Catholics into the pale of the
Established Church, and at the same time to
force that Church itself into closer conformity
to the English model. But if, in common with
most, if not all, of his contemporaries, he had
scant reverence for the rights of conscience, he
was at least wise enough to see that the internal
reform of the Establishment must precede the
attempt to enforce conformity. It was idle,
he told Laud, to inflict penalties for recusancy
“where as yet there is scarcely a church to receive
or an able minister to teach the people.”[#]

At a very early period of his administration
Wentworth’s zeal for ecclesiastical reform involved
him in the first of those personal disputes
with powerful and corrupt officials which contributed
far more than his oppressive treatment of
the native Irish to discredit his administration
in England. Lord Cork, who never allowed his
Protestant enthusiasm to interfere with strict
attention to his pecuniary interests, had contrived
to appropriate property belonging to the diocese
of Lismore of the annual value of £1,600. He
was summoned before the Castle Chamber, and
not merely compelled to disgorge his ill-gotten
gains, but sentenced to a heavy fine. Laud,
with whom Wentworth kept up a constant
correspondence on the affairs of the Church,
.bn 104.png
.pn +1
expressed his satisfaction in very unepiscopal
language.[#]

A second quarrel between Cork and Wentworth
arose, like the former, out of the ecclesiastical
policy of the Lord Deputy. The earl
had erected a stately tomb of black marble, containing
the remains of his wife, in St. Patrick’s
Cathedral, on the spot where the high altar had
once stood, where, as Laud thought, it ought
still to stand. To an English High Churchman
such a proceeding seemed a wanton sacrilege.
Urged on by the archbishop, and probably only
too pleased at the opportunity of inflicting a
fresh annoyance on his enemy, Wentworth
caused the unsightly monument to be removed
to a less sacred place.[#] In both these cases
the Lord Deputy’s action was in full accordance
with the general principles of his policy; but
the pertinacity with which Cork had opposed his
measures in the Council had probably some
share in exciting him to severity against that too
acquisitive peer.

St. Patrick’s was not the only church with
whose internal arrangements the Lord Deputy
felt called upon to interfere. He laboured, not
always successfully, to introduce into the public
offices of the Church a decency and a solemnity
which had been too seldom seen, and at the
.bn 105.png
.pn +1
same time to force upon the clergy practices
which would now be called ritualistic. He was
no fanatic; but he knew that uneducated men
are more readily influenced by ceremonies which
appeal to their imagination than by dogmas
which they do not understand; and he probably
thought that the difficulty of inducing the
Catholics to conform to the established religion
would be lessened if its form of worship did
not perceptibly differ from that to which they
had been previously accustomed.

But it is by his dealings with the Convocation
of 1634 that Wentworth’s ecclesiastical policy
must be chiefly judged. In England it had been
the custom from very early times for a Convocation
of the clergy to be summoned simultaneously
with Parliament. In Ireland for many
centuries there had been no such custom. The
division between the English and Irish clergy
before the Reformation, the prevalence of recusancy
among the priesthood since that epoch may
perhaps account for this omission. In 1560, it
is true, Sussex had received instructions from
Elizabeth “signifying her pleasure for a general
meeting of the clergy of Ireland and the establishment
of the Protestant religion through the
several dioceses of that kingdom.”[#] But it was
not until the reign of James the First, when the
.bn 106.png
.pn +1
reformed Church had been, nominally at least,
extended through all parts of the island, that
the first formal Convocation of the Irish clergy
was held.[#] The ecclesiastical assembly which
was then convened was modelled upon the Convocation
of Canterbury, with this difference, that,
whereas the latter body represented only the
clergy of a single province, the Irish Convocation
contained delegates from all parts of the
kingdom. It was by this body that the Irish
Articles, to which allusion has already been
made, had been adopted; and Wentworth now
resolved to make use of the same machinery to
procure their reform. In accordance with the
precedent which had been set twenty years
earlier, Convocation was again summoned simultaneously
with Parliament. Before it assembled
Wentworth informed Archbishop Usher, the
compiler of the older formula, of the course
which he intended to adopt. Out of respect
for the character and station of the Archbishop,
the Lord Deputy would not insist on the formal
abrogation of the Irish Articles. He proposed
instead that they should be tacitly but effectively
superseded by the adoption of the Articles of
the Church of England—a course for which the
expediency of bringing the two Churches into
closer harmony afforded a decent pretext. To
.bn 107.png
.pn +1
this suggestion, Usher, who was not remarkable
for moral courage, gave a reluctant assent.[#] In
November their reverences assembled, and were
informed that it was the Lord Deputy’s pleasure
that they should adopt not only the Articles,
but the Canons of the English Church. The
upper house, under the presidency of Usher,
instantly complied. The representatives of the
inferior clergy were less submissive. Instead of
adopting the entire body of English Canons, as
the Lord Deputy had desired, they referred them
to a committee, who divided the Canons into
two parts, expressing their approval of some,
and setting others aside for further consideration.
Into the first Canon, which required subscription
to the Thirty-nine Articles, they inserted
a clause declaring that these were not
intended to supersede the Articles already in
use. It was some time before Wentworth,
whose attention was wholly engrossed by the
management of the House of Commons, found
leisure to enquire into their proceedings.[#]
When he was informed of the attitude which
they had adopted his anger knew no bounds.
How he dealt with the refractory clergy shall
be related in his own words:—

.pm letter-start
“I instantly sent for Dean Andrews, that reverend
clerk, who sat forsooth in the chair at
.bn 108.png
.pn +1
this committee, requiring him to bring along the
book of canons so noted in the margin, together
with the draught he was to present that afternoon
to the House. This he obeyed; but when I
came to open the book and run over the deliberandums
in the margin, I confess I was not so
much moved since I came into Ireland. I told
him certainly not a Dean of Limerick, but an
Ananias, had sat in the chair of that committee;
however, sure I was an Ananias had been there
in spirit, if not in body, with all the fraternities
and conventicles of Amsterdam; that I was
ashamed and scandalised with it above measure.
I therefore said he should leave the book and
draught with me; and I did command him, upon
his allegiance, that he should report nothing to
the House from that committee till he heard
again from me.

“Being thus nettled, I gave present directions
for a meeting, and warned the Primate, the
Bishops of Meath, Kilmore, Raphoe and Derry,
together with Dean Leslie, the prolocutor, and
all those who had been of the committee, to be
with me the next morning.

“Then I publicly told them how unlike
Churchmen, who owed canonical obedience to
their superiors, they had proceeded in their committee;
how unheard a part it was for a few
.bn 109.png
.pn +1
petty clerks to presume to make Articles of
Faith without the privity or consent of State or
bishop; what a spirit of Brownism and contradiction
I observed in their deliberandums, as if,
indeed, they purposed at once to take away all
government and order forth of the Church, and
to leave every man to choose his own high place
where liked him best. But these heady and
arrogant courses they must know I was not to
endure; nor, if they were disposed to be frantic
in this dead and cold season of the year, would
I suffer them either to be mad in the Convocation
or in their pulpits.”
.pm letter-end

Terrified out of their wits by the language of
the overbearing Deputy, the clergy made a hasty
and ignominious submission, and accepted the
English Articles without further discussion. To
punish Dean Andrews, whom he regarded as
mainly responsible for the opposition, Wentworth
promoted him to the See of Ferns, the
emoluments of which were considerably less
than those which he had enjoyed as Dean of
Limerick.[#]

At the same time the University of Dublin,
which from the date of its foundation had been
a hotbed of Puritanism, was made to feel the reforming
vigour of the Lord Deputy. The
“weak provost” already referred to—Robert
.bn 110.png
.pn +1
Usher, a relative of the Primate—was, like
Andrews, politely kicked upstairs; and his successor,
Chappell, a man after Laud’s own heart,
proceeded to remodel the college in accordance
with the highest standard of Anglican orthodoxy.[#]

One other innovation of a more serious character
was made. Immediately after the dissolution—for
the step was too unpopular to be taken
while Parliament was sitting—Wentworth proceeded
on his own authority to erect a court of
high commission in Dublin similar to that already
existing in England, “conceiving the use
of it might be very great to countenance the
despised state of the clergy, to support ecclesiastical
courts and officers, to provide for the maintenance
of the clergy and for their residence,
either by themselves or able curates, to bring the
people here to a conformity in religion, and, in
the way of all these, to raise perhaps a good
revenue to the Crown.”[#]

Parliament and Convocation being both dissolved,
Wentworth was at leisure to devote his
energies to the great business of his administration—the
establishment of an English colony in
Connaught. It would be difficult to say which
was the more scandalous, the pretext which the
Lord Deputy put forward for this measure or
.bn 111.png
.pn +1
the steps by which he attempted to carry it into
effect. More than four hundred years earlier
Henry the Third, with that princely generosity
with which sovereigns have so often disposed of
the property of their subjects, had granted the
entire province to Richard de Burgh, with the
exception of five cantreds about Athlone, which
were reserved to the Crown. De Burgh had
succeeded in making good his claim to a great
part of the province, corresponding to the modern
counties of Galway and Mayo; the rest
continued in the possession of the aboriginal inhabitants.
By the death of the last Earl of
Ulster about a century afterwards the title to
these lands passed to his daughter Elizabeth,
then an infant; but the actual possession remained
with his collateral heirs, the MacWilliams,
ancestors of the Earls of Clanricarde and Mayo.
By the marriage of Elizabeth de Burgh to
Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the title to the Connaught
estates of her ancestors had descended
lineally to Edward the Fourth; and the actual
occupants, whether of native or Anglo-Norman
descent, were pronounced by the Lord Deputy
to be intruders on the possessions of the Crown.
Neither the prescriptive right derived from an
undisturbed occupation of centuries, nor the
recent promises of James and Charles, were
.bn 112.png
.pn +1
suffered to constitute a barrier against this
monstrous claim. The Articles concluded with
Perrott were pronounced invalid on the plea that
that statesman had exceeded his instructions;
the patents granted by James on the ground of
the technical flaw already noticed.[#]

Shortly after the dissolution a Royal Commission
was issued “for inquiry into defective
titles;” and in July the Lord Deputy set out
for Connaught to superintend the work of
robbery in person. The concurrence of the
judges had already been ensured by promising
their lordships a commission of four shillings in
the pound upon the profits of the plantation;
“which, upon observation,” Wentworth afterwards
declared, “I find to be the best given that
ever was. For now they do intend it with a care
and diligence such as if it were their own private.
And most certain, the gaining to themselves
every four shillings once paid shall better your
revenue ever after at least five pounds.”[#] Great
pains were taken to seek out jurors who “might
give furtherance in finding a title for the King.”
The sheriffs were instructed to select “gentlemen
of the best estates and understanding,”
whose verdict in favour of the royal title would
carry the more weight, since they would be “as
much concerned in their own particulars as any
.bn 113.png
.pn +1
other;” while on the other hand they would be
able to “answer the King a good round sum in
the Castle Chamber if they should prevaricate.”

The Commission was first opened in Roscommon,
where Wentworth addressed a jury,
composed as he had directed, in a highly
characteristic speech. His Majesty, he said,
desired only to make them “a civil and rich
people;” and a plantation was necessary in
order to accomplish this benevolent purpose. He
did not intend “to take from them anything that
was justly theirs, but in truth to bestow amongst
them a good part of that which was his own.”
He “came not to sue them to find for him as
needing any power of theirs to vindicate his own
right, for without them, where his right is so
plain, he could not in justice have been denied
possession upon an information of intrusion. The
Court in an ordinary way of Exchequer must
have granted it on the first motion of the
Attorney-General.” To the King, therefore,
their decision was a matter of indifference: with
a verdict, or without it, he intended to take their
property; “the path to his right lay elsewhere,
open and fair before him.” But, as regarded
their own interests, “as one that must ever wish
prosperity to their nation, I desired them, first,
to descend into their own consciences and take
.bn 114.png
.pn +1
them to counsel, and there they should find the
evidence for the Crown clear and conclusive.
Next, to beware how they appeared resolved or
obstinate against so manifest a truth, or how
they let slip forth of their hands the means to
weave themselves into the royal thoughts and
care of his Majesty, through a cheerful and
ready acknowledgment of his right and a due
and full submission thereunto. So, then, if
they would be inclined to truth and do best for
themselves, they would undoubtedly find the
title for the King. If they were passionately
resolved to go over all bounds to their own will,
and, without respects at all to their own good,
to do that which were simply best for his
Majesty, then I should advise them roughly
and pertinaciously to deny to find any title at
all. And there I left them to chant together,
as they call it, over the evidence.”[#]

Owing partly to this adroit mixture of
chicanery and menace, partly, as it would seem,
to private negotiations between the Lord
Deputy and individual jurymen,[#] a verdict
acknowledging the royal title was returned. The
juries of Sligo and Mayo were equally complacent;
but in Galway, as Wentworth had
anticipated, and indeed desired, considerable
opposition was made. The county was the
.bn 115.png
.pn +1
headquarters of the De Burghs; and the Earl
of Clanricarde and his dependents were understood
to be very hostile to the proposed plantation.
“But whether it be so or not,” Wentworth
wrote to Charles: “I could wish their county
would stand out, for I am well assured it shall
turn to your Majesty’s advantage if they do.
For certain it is a county which lies out at a
corner by itself, and all the inhabitants wholly
natives and Papists, hardly an Englishman
among them, whom they keep out with all the
industry in the world; and therefore it would
be a great security if they were thoroughly lined
with English indeed.” His wishes were gratified.
Although the royal title was made out
in such manner as appeared “most just, honourable,
and unquestionable to all equal-minded
men,” the jury “obstinately and perversely
refused” to find for the Crown. For this
obstinacy, Wentworth offered three explanations.
First, “there is scarce a Protestant freeholder
to be found to serve his Majesty on this
or any other occasion in this country, being in
a manner altogether compounded of Papists.”
Secondly, “the counsellors at law, being all of
them recusants, showed themselves over-busy
even to faction, in this service against the King.”
Lastly, the Earl of Clanricarde had exerted the
.bn 116.png
.pn +1
influence derived from his “great estate” and
“far-spread kindred” to frustrate the plantation.
In support of this last assertion, Wentworth
appealed to the following facts. First,
John Donnellan, the Earl’s steward, had received
messengers with letters from the Earl out of
England; “and, whereas we were certainly informed
that divers gentlemen were resolved to
have acknowledged the King’s title, upon these
men’s arrival they altered their resolutions, and
since stand in opposition thereunto.” Secondly,
Lord Clanmorris, a nephew of the Earl, “appeared
openly before us to countenance the
opposition of the country.” Thirdly, Richard
Burke, of Derrymacoghlan, another nephew of
the Earl and a member of the jury, had pulled
a fellow juror by the sleeve, “labouring to divert
the said juror from declaring that his conscience
led him to find for his Majesty.” Fourthly,
“the Earl’s principal servant and steward, John
Donnellan, being one of the jury, we saw plainly
that he guided the rest which way he pleased.”
Fifthly and lastly, “most of the jurors are of
the Earl’s kindred or near alliance, or his
dependents.”

Wentworth was not the man to be deterred
by an adverse verdict. He had warned the jury
that, if they refused to find the verdict which
.bn 117.png
.pn +1
he desired, it would be the worse for them, and
he now showed that this had been no idle menace.
D’Arcy, the Sheriff, whom the Lord Deputy
held responsible for what he regarded as a gross
miscarriage of justice, was imprisoned and fined
£1,000 “for returning an insufficient and, as we
conceived, a packed jury.” The jurors themselves
were summoned before the Castle
Chamber and fined £4,000 each. A proclamation
was next issued, by which the
other landowners of the county were recommended
to disassociate themselves from
the recalcitrant jurors, and save a portion of
their estates by acknowledging the royal title.
The Court of Exchequer, by Wentworth’s direction,
issued an order “to seize for his Majesty
the lands of the jurors, and of all that should not
lay hold on his Majesty’s grace offered them
by the proclamation.” With Clanricarde himself
the Lord Deputy insisted that no terms
would be made. The Earl and his son were at
this time in London; and there Wentworth
advised that they should be detained until the
work of spoliation had been carried out. Wentworth
further advised that the fortifications of
Galway should be repaired, and that that city
and Athenry should be strongly garrisoned while
the plantations were proceeding.[#] Charles
signified his concurrence.[#]
.bn 118.png
.pn +1

And now comes the mysterious part of the
business. The Commission sat in 1635; the
Lord Deputy continued to hold office until the
spring of 1641; yet the plantation was never
carried out. No satisfactory explanation has
yet been offered for this omission. It is certain
that, so long as Wentworth lived, the scheme
was never definitely abandoned.[#] In all probability
the task was found to be more difficult
than had been anticipated. The settlement of
Ulster had been a simple matter in comparison.
In the northern province Mountjoy had prepared
the way for the planters by exterminating the
best part of the original inhabitants; and the
flight of the earls had left the scanty remnant
destitute of their natural leaders. In Connaught,
which had been comparatively peaceful during
the Elizabethan wars, there was a numerous and
warlike population, not yet cowed by famine
and massacre, to be reckoned with; and their
leader, Lord Clanricarde, a great English noble
as well as a great Irish chieftain, could exert
more influence at the Court of England than
any “mere Irishman” could have done. These
considerations may have induced Wentworth to
proceed slowly and with caution. During 1636
and the two following years the province continued
to be strongly garrisoned, and a few
.bn 119.png
.pn +1
English settlers seem to have been introduced;
but they were very few, and Connaught was
still almost wholly in Catholic hands when the
troubles that broke out in Scotland compelled
the Lord Deputy to turn his attention elsewhere.[#]

During the next three years Wentworth
devoted himself to securing for his master a
revenue independent of Parliamentary control.
With this object, inquisitions into defective titles
were held not only in Connaught, but in every
part of the island. No fresh plantations were
made; but any landlord in whose title the
smallest technical flaw could be discovered was
compelled to pay heavily for a fresh patent.
These exactions pressed hard upon natives and
colonists alike. The former had generally
inherited their lands according to some Irish
custom not recognised by English lawyers;
while many of the latter had neglected to fulfil
the onerous and intricate conditions imposed
upon them by the Articles of the plantations.
The O’Byrnes of Wicklow, who had already
been so harshly treated, were compelled to pay
£15,000 before they recovered their estates.[#]
The London companies were prosecuted in the
Star Chamber on a charge of mismanaging their
Ulster property, and condemned to forfeiture
and a fine of £70,000.[#]
.bn 120.png
.pn +1

At the same time the Lord Deputy exerted
himself with characteristic energy to develop
the material resources of the country. The
extraordinary advances which Irish commerce
made under his government have been acknowledged
by historians the most hostile to his
memory.[#] In one respect, it is true, his commercial
policy deserves severe blame. He found
in Ireland, on his arrival, the beginnings of a
flourishing woollen manufacture; and this manufacture,
out of deference to the jealous fears
of English traders, he promptly proceeded to
destroy. The injury thus inflicted was more
than compensated by the enormous development
of the linen trade; a development which must
be ascribed in large measure to the judicious
and munificent patronage of Wentworth. He
imported great quantities of flax from Holland
at his own expense; introduced skilled workmen
from France and the Low Countries; and
did so much for the improvement of this industry
that, although it had existed in Ireland at least
as early as the fifteenth century, he is still spoken
of in popular tradition as its founder.[#]

In spite, however, of the increasing prosperity
of the country, the Lord Deputy continued to
be an object of aversion to every section of the
community. His unpopularity was due in almost
.bn 121.png
.pn +1
equal measure to the merits and to the faults
of his administration. The more violent Protestants
were indignant at the introduction of
the English Articles, as well as at Wentworth’s
persistent refusal to exact the recusancy fines.
The Catholics were kept in constant alarm by
the inquiries into defective titles, and by the
penal laws, which, though their execution was
temporarily suspended, the Lord Deputy, as
they were probably aware, was fully resolved to
enforce, as soon as he should feel able to do so
with impunity.[#] At the same time a crowd of
rapacious officials, who had enriched themselves
under the government of his incompetent predecessor,
were exasperated by his vigorous
attempts to repress jobbery and extortion. For
this at least must be acknowledged to Wentworth’s
honour, that, if he was a tyrant, he suffered
no tyranny but his own.

The hostility of these men proved far more
injurious to the Lord Deputy than the indignation
of the native gentry. Of his quarrel with
Lord Cork I have already spoken. His treatment
of two other officials was made the subject of still
harsher criticism. At the beginning of his administration
Wentworth had been opposed by a
majority of the Irish Council, but supported by
a minority led by Lord Chancellor Loftus and
.bn 122.png
.pn +1
Lord Mountnorris, both conspicuous for their
hostility to his predecessor.[#] Within a very
few years he had made both these men his bitter
enemies. Mountnorris, when Wentworth took
office, was Vice-Treasurer, and was believed by
Lord Cork, then Treasurer, to have been guilty
of gross mismanagement, if not of actual malversation.[#]
Wentworth was not as a rule disposed
to pay much attention to Cork’s statements;
but misappropriation of public moneys
was the last thing which he felt inclined to
tolerate; and he instituted an inquiry which resulted
in the conviction of Mountnorris, not,
indeed, of personal corruption, but of scandalous
negligence in tolerating the corruption of his
subordinates.[#] Although Mountnorris was not
at once deprived of his office he evidently considered
himself aggrieved, and thenceforth intrigued
persistently against the Lord Deputy.
In the spring of 1635 the quarrel came to a head.
A younger brother of Mountnorris, an officer in
Wentworth’s own regiment, was guilty of some
trivial breach of military discipline. He was
rebuked by Wentworth, and answered with an
impertinent gesture. The Lord Deputy, whose
naturally choleric temper was at this time aggravated
by an attack of gout, struck him lightly
with his cane, telling him that, if the offence was
.bn 123.png
.pn +1
repeated, “he would lay him over the pate.” A
few days later, at a levée at Dublin Castle, a
gentleman-in-waiting, who was also related to
Mountnorris, contrived to overturn a stool on the
Lord Deputy’s gouty foot. At a dinner party
given not long afterwards by the Lord Chancellor,
the occurrence was discussed, and Mountnorris
hazarded an opinion that it had not been
entirely accidental. “Perhaps,” said he, “it was
done in revenge of that public affront that the
Lord Deputy had done me formerly. But,” he
added, “he has a brother who would not take
such a revenge.”[#]

What Mountnorris may have meant it is impossible
to say. In all probability he meant
nothing, for the words were uttered after dinner,
and he was not a man of abstemious habits. Be
that as it may, he had soon reason to rue his
imprudence. His words were repeated to the
Lord Deputy, probably by Adam Loftus the
younger, who was anxious to succeed him as
Vice-Treasurer. Wentworth, who had previously
been in communication with the king on the
subject of Mountnorris’s financial irregularities,
now wrote to request his Majesty’s permission
to bring the Vice-Treasurer before a court-martial
on the monstrous charge of inciting to a
mutiny in the army. The permission was
.bn 124.png
.pn +1
granted in July,[#] but it was not until six months
later that the trial was held. The delay may
have been due to the affairs of Connaught,
which left the Lord Deputy little leisure to
prosecute a personal quarrel; but it is also possible
that Wentworth did not intend to proceed
further in the matter unless fresh provocation
was given. In the autumn, unfortunately for
himself, Mountnorris engaged in an intrigue
which kindled afresh the smouldering anger of
the Lord Deputy. He proposed to the king an
iniquitous scheme of taxation, which would, if it
had been adopted, have increased his Majesty’s
revenue from £8,000 to £20,000.[#] Wentworth,
eager as he undoubtedly was “to raise a good
revenue for the Crown,” was wise enough to
understand that there is a point beyond which
taxation cannot advantageously be pushed. He
also knew his master quite well enough to feel
sure that the permanent interest of the country
would have little weight with him against the
prospect of an immediate pecuniary gain. He
resolved to crush Mountnorris without delay.

On December 12th, the unfortunate officer
was summoned to a council of war at Dublin
Castle. On his arrival he found several other
persons present, but no one could inform him of
the purpose for which their attendance was required.
.bn 125.png
.pn +1
Wentworth presently arrived and told
the company that it would be their duty to hold
a court-martial on Lord Mountnorris, whose language
at the Lord Chancellor’s dinner-party
constituted a breach of two of the articles of
war by which the army was governed. By the
41st article it was ordered that no man should
“give any disgraceful words or commit any act
to the disgrace of any person in the army or
garrison, or any part thereof, upon pain of imprisonment,
public disarming, and banishment
from the army”; by the 13th that “no man
should offer any violence, or contemptuously disobey
his commander, or do any act or speak any
words which are like to breed any mutiny in the
army or garrison, or impeach the obeying of the
general or principal officer’s directions, upon pain
of death.” The words, “a brother who would
not take such a revenge” were intended, according
to the Lord Deputy’s interpretation, as an
instigation to young Annesley to revenge himself
in some more violent fashion than by the
mere dropping of a footstool.

Mountnorris was stunned by this unexpected
blow. He could neither deny the words imputed
to him, nor offer any plausible explanation of
them. The court, after a short deliberation,
returned a verdict of guilty; and Mountnorris
.bn 126.png
.pn +1
was sentenced “to be shot to death or to lose
his head at the pleasure of the General.” Wentworth,
who had been present at the proceedings
but had taken no part in them, then addressed
the prisoner and told him that he need be under
no apprehensions so far as the capital sentence
was concerned. “I had rather,” he said, “lose
my hand than you should lose your head.”
Mountnorris was kept for a short time in prison,
deprived of his office of Vice-Treasurer, and dismissed
from the army.[#]

These oppressive proceedings added yet
another to the numerous enemies of Wentworth.
Lord Cork, who had been compelled to disgorge
the plundered revenues of the Church, and Lord
Wilmot, who had been disgraced for embezzling
the property of the Crown,[#] were already intriguing
to procure his recall. With greater
justice the De Burghs complained of his severity
to the Galway jury. The Earl of Clanricarde
was lately dead; and, though he was certainly
an old man, his end was generally believed to
have been hastened by vexation at the tyranny
of the Lord Deputy.[#] D’Arcy, the sheriff of
Galway, had also died not long after his committal
to prison; and his death too was laid at
Wentworth’s door.[#] By the beginning of the
following year the outcry against him had become
.bn 127.png
.pn +1
so loud that he found it advisable to proceed
in person to London to justify himself
before the king. He pointed with a not unjust
pride to the undoubted reforms which he had
effected in the government of Ireland. He had
found the country on the verge of bankruptcy;
he had established a large and rapidly-increasing
revenue, and that without resorting to the
dangerous and unpopular expedient of exacting
the recusancy fines. He had transformed the
Irish army from a disorderly rabble into a disciplined
and efficient force; had suppressed
piracy; and had developed the material resources
of the island. He had set his foot upon
the jobbery of the Dublin officials, and had done
something, if not much, to improve the scandalous
condition of the Established Church. His
most arbitrary acts had been committed in his
master’s interests, and were therefore such as
that master was only too ready to condone.
Charles signified his approval in the most
gracious terms. After a few months’ absence
Wentworth returned to Ireland with his enemies
silenced and his position apparently impregnable.[#]

Rather more than a year after the Mountnorris
court-martial Wentworth became involved in a
dispute with another official which brought upon
.bn 128.png
.pn +1
him an even fiercer storm of obloquy. In his
conflict with Cork he had had the support of
Mountnorris and Loftus; he had afterwards had
the support of Loftus in his conflict with Mountnorris.
The Chancellor himself was destined to
be the next victim. In 1621, on the occasion of
his son’s marriage to the daughter of Sir Francis
Raishe, his lordship had entered into an agreement
to settle £300 a year on the bride, and
£1,200 in land on her children. Fifteen years
afterwards he attempted to evade his obligations,
alleging some technical irregularity in the marriage
contract. On the petition of Sir John
Giffard, the legal representative of the lady’s
family, the affair was referred to the Privy Council.
Loftus protested that the claim of the Privy
Council to interfere was unconstitutional, and
that the plaintiff ought to have filed a bill
against him in his own court. He would then
have been judge as well as defendant—an
arrangement which promised obvious advantages
to a litigant with a lax conscience and a bad
case.[#] But it is dangerous, the old proverb tells
us, to prosecute Beelzebub in the court of Hell;
and Giffard was no doubt of opinion that it
would be equally imprudent to proceed against
the Lord Chancellor in the Court of Chancery.
The Privy Council decided against Loftus, who
.bn 129.png
.pn +1
renewed his protests—protests which came with
a singularly bad grace from one who had repeatedly
sat upon the same tribunal upon occasions
when there had been much less cogent
reasons for a departure from the orthodox
method of procedure. He was thereupon deprived
of the seals and imprisoned for contempt;
but subsequently released on acknowledging the
jurisdiction of the court. It does not appear
that he had any defence on the merits; but the
exalted position of the delinquent and an abominable,
but apparently groundless rumour that his
daughter-in-law had been Wentworth’s mistress,
induced the enemies of the Lord Deputy to give
the affair as much prominence as possible.[#]
.bn 130.png
.pn +1
.bn 131.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.pb
.sp 2
.h3
Notes
.sp 2
.pm fn-start // 1
In Harris’s <i>Fiction Unmasked</i>, pp. 53-60,
there is an excellent summary of the pretexts put
forward for these plantations. The most important
papers relating to the plantation of Leitrim
will be found in <i>Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica</i>,
II., 52-77. Miss Hickson (<i>Ireland in the Seventeenth
Century</i>, II., 276-299) has printed some
interesting papers relating to the plantations of
Longford and Ely O’Carroll. For an Irish view
of the plantations, see David Rothe’s <i>Analecta
Sacra</i>.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 2
For the Composition of Connaught compare
Roderick O’Flaherty’s <i>Chorographical Description
of Iar-Connaught</i>, pp. 309-362, where the
articles are given in full; <i>Government of Ireland
under Sir John Perrott</i>, pp. 79-86; Rawlinson’s
<i>History of Sir John Perrott</i>, p. 149; Wentworth
to Coke, August 25, 1635. (<i>Strafford Letters</i>,
I., 450-454.) In the <i>Calendar of Irish State
Papers</i>, 1615-1625, there are several letters containing
suggestions for a plantation of Connaught.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 3
Docwra to ——, March 3, 1618. (<i>Calendar</i>,
1615-1625, 399.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 4
Falkland to Conway, September 11, 1626.
(<i>Calendar</i>, 1625-1632, 438.) Falkland, however,
had recommended this step even before the death
of James. Falkland to the Privy Council, December
11, 1624. (<i>Calendar</i>, 1615-1625, 1324.)
.pm fn-end

.bn 132.png
.pn +1

.pm fn-start // 5
Diary of the Assembly. (<i>Calendar</i>, 1625-32,
713.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 6
Elrington’s <i>Life of Usher</i>, pp. 73-74.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 7
<i>A Remonstrance presented to his Majesty by
the Parliament in June, 1628.</i>
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 8
The Graces in their amended form are given
in Wentworth’s letter to Coke, October 6, 1634.
(<i>Strafford Letters</i>, I., 312-328.) The earlier draft
is printed in the <i>Calendar of State Papers</i>, 1625-1632,
446. The eighth article runs: “The fine
of 12d. a Sunday and holiday for not going to
church shall be remitted for recusants except in
particular cases.”
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 9
Rushworth’s <i>Historical Collections</i>, II., 19.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 10
These depositions, as well as the report of
the Commissioners and Falkland’s defence, are
printed in Gilbert’s <i>History of the Confederation
and War in Ireland</i>, I., 167-217.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 11
Proclamation, April 1, 1629. (<i>Rushworth</i>,
II., 21.) Similar proclamations had been issued
in 1617, 1623, and 1624, but they had had very
little effect.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 12
For the conduct of Archbishop Loftus, see
Ware’s <i>Bishops of Ireland</i> and Elrington’s <i>Life
of Usher</i>, pp. 6, 115, and for that of some later
members of his family Lecky’s <i>History of Ireland</i>,
V. 295. With regard to the Chancellor himself,
I have collected some evidence in a later part
of this paper.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 13
Lord Cork was the author of an extremely
mendacious autobiographical fragment, entitled
<i>True Remembrances</i>, which is prefixed to the
collected edition of his son’s works. In Wright’s
<i>History of Ireland</i>, Bk. V., ch. 21, this remarkable
.bn 133.png
.pn +1
able paper is carefully analysed and its statements
compared with the evidence of more trustworthy
documents.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 14
Charles to Wilmot, August 5, 1629. (<i>Calendar</i>,
1625-1632, 1449.) See also with regard to
this quarrel the repeated and bitter attacks on
Loftus in Lord Cork’s Diary (<i>Lismore Papers</i>,
1st series). The quarrel seems to have originated
in the refusal of the Chancellor to decide a
lawsuit in Lord Cork’s favour some years earlier.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 15
Hammond L’Estrange, <i>Annals of the Reign
of Charles the First</i>, p. 116. Compare <i>Foxes
and Firebrands</i>, pt. 2, p. 71; Wilmot to Dorchester,
January 6, 1629-30. (<i>Calendar</i>, 1625-1632,
1570.) “Tharchbishop of Dublin, and
the Maior of Dublin, by the direction of vs, the
Lords Justices, Ransackt the howse of f. fryer
in Cook Street,” Lord Cork’s Diary, December
26, 1629.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 16
The Catholic University seems to have given
particular offence to the Protestant clergy. Thus
Bedell, writing to Wentworth, complains that
“his Holiness hath erected a new university at
Dublin to confront his Majesty’s college there.”
(<i>Strafford Letters</i>, I., 147.) The documents relating
to the seizure of its property will be found in
Mahaffy’s <i>Epoch of Irish History</i>, ch. V.

For an account of St. Patrick’s Purgatory see
Richardson’s <i>Folly of Pilgrimages</i>, p. 44, and
for its destruction Lord Cork’s Diary, September
8, 1632. In October, 1638, the Queen wrote to
Wentworth begging him to allow it to be restored.
He declined on the ground that it was “in the
midst of the great Scottish plantation.” (<i>Strafford
Letters</i>, II., 221, 222.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 17
Lords Justices to Wentworth, February 26,
1631-2. (<i>Ibid.</i>, I., 67-70.)
.pm fn-end

.bn 134.png
.pn +1

.pm fn-start // 18
Charles to the Lords Justices, January 12,
1631-2. (<i>Ibid.</i>, I., 62-63.) Miss Hickson has
quoted a most significant entry from the MS.
journal of an Anglo-Irish official: “July 23, 1633.
The Lord Viscounte Wentworth came to Ireland
to govern ye kingdom: manie men feare.”
(<i>Ireland in the Seventeenth Century</i>, I., 52.)
Lord Cork expressed his dissatisfaction still more
forcibly: “A moste cursed man to all Ireland and
to me in particular.” Diary, July 23, 1633.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 19
Wentworth to Cottington, October 1, 1632.
(<i>Strafford Letters</i>, I., 74-77.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 20
Wentworth to Charles, April 12, 1634. (<i>Ibid.</i>,
I., 182-187.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 21
Charles to Wentworth, April 17, 1634. (<i>Ibid.</i>,
I., 233.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 22
Wentworth to Coke, June 24, 1634. (<i>Ibid.</i>,
I., 269, 270.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 23
Wentworth to Coke, August 18, 1634. (<i>Ibid.</i>,
I., 276-282.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 24
Wentworth to Coke, October 6, 1634. (<i>Ibid.</i>,
I., 304-328.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 25
“Your last public despatch has given me a
great deal of contentment, and especially for keeping
off the envy of a necessary negative from me
of those unreasonable Graces that that people expected
from me.”—Charles to Wentworth, October
23, 1634. (<i>Ibid.</i>, I., 331.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 26
Wentworth to Coke, December 16, 1634.
(<i>Ibid.</i>, I., 345-353.) For the proceedings of this
Parliament I have also consulted the <i>Irish Commons’
Journals</i>, I., pp. 59-119, but they add very
little to our information. For its legislation see
<i>Irish Statutes</i>, 10 and 11, Charles I.
.pm fn-end
.bn 135.png
.pn +1

.pm fn-start // 27
Charles to Wentworth, January 22, 1634-5.
(<i>Strafford Letters</i>, I., 365.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 28
Wentworth to Laud, January 31, 1633-4.
(<i>Ibid.</i>, I., 187-189.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 29
Bedell to Laud, April I, 1630. (Burnet’s
<i>Life of Bedell</i>, pp. 35, 36.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 30
<i>A full Confutation of the Covenant, lately
sworn and subscribed by many in Scotland: delivered
in a speech at the visitation of Down and
Connor, September 26, 1638.</i> By Henry Leslie.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 31
The Irish articles are printed in Elrington’s
<i>Life of Usher</i>, Appendix, xxxiii.—L.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 32
Bramhall to Laud, August 10, 1633. (Collier’s
<i>Ecclesiastical History</i>, VIII., 72-75.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 33
“Every parish hath its priest, and some two
or three apiece; and so their mass-houses also; in
some places mass is said in the churches.” Bedell
to Laud, April 1, 1630. Compare a report some
years earlier on the ecclesiastical state of the province
of Armagh, from which long extracts are
printed in Mant’s <i>History of the Church of Ireland</i>,
I., 395-408.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 34
Heylin’s <i>History of Presbyterianism</i>, p. 393.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 35
See the autobiographies of Robert Blair and
John Livingston, two of the ministers who obtained
benefices by these means; also Adair’s
<i>True Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the
Presbyterian Church in Ireland</i>, 1623-1670; and
Dr. Killen’s preface.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 36
Vesey’s <i>Life of Bramhall</i>.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 37
Bedell to Laud, August 7, 1630. (<i>Two Lives
of William Bedell</i>, pp. 311-314.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 38
Clogy’s <i>Life of Bedell</i>, p. 118.
.pm fn-end

.bn 136.png
.pn +1

.pm fn-start // 39
See much evidence of this in Ware’s <i>Bishops
of Ireland</i>.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 40
Wentworth to Laud, December, 1633. (<i>Strafford
Letters</i>, I., 171-173.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 41
“My Lord, I did not take you to be so good
a physician before as now I see you are; for the
truth is, a great many Church cormorants have
fed so full upon it that they are fallen into a
fever; and for that no physic better than a vomit,
if it be given in time; and therefore you have
taken a very judicious course to administer one
so early to my Lord of Cork. I hope it will do
him good, though perchance he thinks not so, for
if the fever hang long about him or the rest it
will certainly shake either them or their estates
in pieces.”—Laud to Wentworth, November 15,
1633. (<i>Ibid.</i>, I., 155, 156.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 42
Laud to Wentworth, March 11, 1634. (<i>Ibid.</i>,
I., 211.) See also several letters in the <i>Lismore
Papers</i>, 2nd series, and Mason’s <i>History and Antiquities
of the Collegiate and Cathedral Church
of St. Patrick</i>, pp. liii., liv.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 43
Ware’s <i>Annals of Ireland</i>, <sc>A.D.</sc> 1560.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 44
The best accounts of the Convocations of
1613-15 and 1634-35 are in Elrington’s <i>Life of
Usher</i>, pp. 39-49, and 165-187.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 45
Wentworth to Laud, August 23, 1634. (<i>Strafford
Letters</i>, I., 298-301.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 46
“The Popish party, growing extreme perverse
in the Commons House, and the Parliament
thereby in great danger to have been lost in a
storm, had so taken up all my thoughts and endeavours
that, for five or six days, it was not
almost possible for me to take an account how
business went among them of the clergy.”—Wentworth
to Laud, December 16, 1634. (<i>Ibid.</i>,
I., 342-345.)
.pm fn-end

.bn 137.png
.pn +1

.pm fn-start // 47
<i>Ibid.</i>
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 48
Mahaffy’s <i>Epoch of Irish History</i>, ch. VI.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 49
Wentworth to Laud, January 31, 1633-34.
(<i>Strafford Letters</i>, I., 187-189.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 50
Brief of his Majesty’s title to Connaught.
(<i>Ibid.</i>, I., 454-458.) For the history of the settlement
of the De Burghs in Connaught compare
Matthew Paris, <i>Historia</i>, p. 230, etc.; <i>Annals of
Lough Cé</i>; preface to Lord Clanricarde’s <i>Memoirs</i>;
The O’Conor Don’s <i>O’Conors of Connaught</i>, pp.
88-95.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 51
Wentworth to Charles, December 9, 1636.
(<i>Strafford Letters</i>, II., 41.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 52
Wentworth to Coke, July 14, 1635. (<i>Ibid.</i>,
I., 442-444.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 53
“Sir Lucas Dillon, the foreman of the jury,
hath behaved himself with so much discretion and
expressed all along so good affections, as I cannot
choose but here to mention him, and hereafter to
beseech his Majesty he may be remembered when
upon the dividing of the lands his own particular
come in question. In truth, he deserves to be
extraordinarily well dealt withal.”—(<i>Ibid.</i>)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 54
Wentworth and the Commissioners to Coke,
August 25, 1635, and enclosures. (<i>Ibid.</i>, I., 450-458.)
For the fining of the jury we have Wentworth’s
own admission; if his enemies may be
believed, they were also “pilloried with loss of
ears, bored through the tongue, and marked in
the forehead with a hot iron, with other like infamous
punishments.”—<i>Irish Commons’ Journals.</i>
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 55
Coke to Wentworth, September 20, 1635.
(<i>Strafford Letters</i>, I., 464-465.)
.pm fn-end

.bn 138.png
.pn +1

.pm fn-start // 56
It was finally abandoned in April, 1641. See
Gardiner’s <i>History of England</i>, X., 45, where a
letter of the Lords Justices is quoted.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 57
“The Plantations prove a most laborious
work; I could not imagine their march had been
so heavy.”—Wentworth to Charles, June 5, 1638.
(<i>Strafford Letters</i>, II., 175.) In another letter he
recommends that a body of cavalry should be sent
into Connaught “as fit lookers-on whilst the plantations
are settling.” Wentworth to Coke,
August 10, 1638. (<i>Ibid.</i>, II., 197-201.) For the influence
of Lord Clanricarde in preventing the plantation,
see Wentworth to Coke, May 18 and July
9, to Charles, July 9 and August 13, 1639, (<i>Ibid.</i>,
II., 340, 366-369, 381.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 58
Wentworth to Charles, June 5, 1638. (<i>Ibid.</i>,
II., 175-176.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 59
Wentworth has been generally blamed for this
sentence, which was one of the principal matters
urged against him at his trial; but, though it is
evident from several passages in his <i>Letters</i> that
he regarded it with approval and was ready to
turn it to the King’s advantage, the case had
actually been pending for some years before he
came to Ireland. See the correspondence between
Charles I and the Lords Justices in 1631. (<i>Concise
View of the Irish Society.</i> Appendix, pp. 185-188.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 60
Reid’s <i>History of the Presbyterian Church in
Ireland</i>, I., 213. Leland’s <i>History of Ireland</i>,
III., 40, 41.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 61
“There was little or no manufacture amongst
them, but some small beginnings towards a clothing
trade, which I had and so should still discourage
all I could, unless otherwise directed by
his Majesty and their lordships, in regard, it
.bn 139.png
.pn +1
would trench not only upon the clothings of England,
being our staple commodity, so as if they
should manufacture their own wools, which grew
to very great quantities, we should not only lose
the profit we made now by indraping their wools,
but his Majesty lose extremely by his Customs,
and, in conclusion, it might be feared they would
beat us out of the trade itself, by under-selling us,
which they were well able to do.”—Wentworth to
Wandesford, July 25, 1636. (<i>Strafford Letters</i>,
II., 13-23.) For his encouragement of the linen
trade see the same letter.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 62
Wentworth to Coke, November 28, 1636.
(<i>Ibid.</i>, II., 38-39.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 63
Wentworth to Coke, August 3, 1633. (<i>Ibid.</i>,
I., 97.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 64
Townshend’s <i>Life and Letters of the Great
Earl of Cork</i>, pp. 180-181.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 65
Wentworth to Coke, March 25 and April 7,
1635 (<i>Strafford Letters</i>, I., 391, 392, 400-407.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 66
Wentworth to Coke, December 15, 1635.
(<i>Ibid.</i>, I., 497-501.) Rushworth’s <i>Trial of the Earl
of Strafford</i>. The account in Clarendon (<i>History
of the Great Rebellion</i>, III., 111-114) is inaccurate.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 67
Charles to Wentworth, July 31, 1635. (<i>Strafford
Letters</i>, I., 448.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 68
Laud to Wentworth, January 2, 1635-6.
(Laud’s <i>Works</i>, VII., 216) and Wentworth’s reply,
March 9. (<i>Strafford Letters</i>, I., 517.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 69
Wentworth to Coke, December 14 and 15,
1635. (<i>Ibid.</i>, I., 497-501.) Sentence on Lord
Mountnorris, enclosed in the preceding. <i>Somers
Tracts</i>, IV., 202-208. Rushworth’s <i>Trial of the
Earl of Strafford</i>, pp. 186-204.
.pm fn-end

.bn 140.png
.pn +1

.pm fn-start // 70
Coke to Wentworth, October 26, 1635, enclosing
Lord Wilmot’s submission. (<i>Strafford
Letters</i>, I., 477.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 71
“This last packet advertised the death of the
Earl of St. Albans, and that it is reported my
harsh usage broke his heart. God and your
Majesty know my innocency; they might as well
have imputed unto me for a crime his being three-score
and ten years old.”—Wentworth to Charles,
December 5, 1635. (<i>Ibid.</i>, 491-493.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 72
“I am full of belief they will lay the charge
of D’Arcy the sheriff’s death unto me; my arrows
are cruel that wound so mortally; but I should be
more sorry by much the King should lose his fine.”—Wentworth
to Wandesford, July 25, 1636.
(<i>Ibid.</i>, II., 13-23.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 73
Wentworth’s own defence of his administration
is contained in the letter to Wandesford
quoted in the preceding note.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 74
“And, forasmuch as relief could only be
sought for upon the said agreement in a course
of equity, which was most proper to be had in the
High Court of Chancery of this kingdom, where
his lordship should become both judge and party;
therefore, and to the intent justice might be done,
he (Giffard) prayed that the said matter might be
referred to the Lord Deputy and Council of Ireland
to be by them heard and determined.”—Report
by Arthur, Earl of Essex, August 18, 1674.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 75
Report by J. T. Gilbert on the MSS. of the
Marquis of Drogheda. (<i>Historical MSS. Commission,
9th report</i>, pp. 293-330.) Clarendon’s
<i>History of the Great Rebellion</i>, III., 115-117.
.pm fn-end

.bn 141.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.pb
.sp 4
.nf c
STRAFFORD

PART II

THE EVE OF “1641”

<sc>By</sc> PHILIP WILSON
.nf-
.bn 142.png
.pn +1
.bn 143.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.pb
.sp 4
.nf c
Strafford
.nf-
.sp 4
.h2
PART II||<sc>The Eve of</sc> “1641”
.sp 2
<sc>The</sc> real or fancied grievances of Loftus and
Mountnorris excited far more indignation in
England than the wrongs of the native population;
but it is not by his dealings with a few
powerful and corrupt functionaries, but by his
treatment of the mass of the Irish people that
Wentworth’s administration must be judged.
Of his action in the matter of the Connaught
plantation it is impossible to speak too severely.
In other respects his government was just and
equitable; too equitable, indeed, to secure the
approbation of the colonists, who conceived that
they had an inalienable right to trample upon
the older inhabitants. On the subject of religious
liberty his views, while by no means consonant
to modern notions of justice, were, on the
whole, in advance of those of his contemporaries.

Bacon, in the preceding reign, had recommended
toleration, not as a thing desirable
.bn 144.png
.pn +1
in itself, but as a temporary expedient which the
peculiar circumstances of Ireland required.[#]
Wentworth’s view was substantially the same as
Bacon’s. He undoubtedly looked forward to the
ultimate suppression of every religion other than
that legally established. But he was far too
wise a man to have recourse to violent and indiscriminate
coercion. “I am not ignorant,” he
wrote to Cottington, “how much every good
Englishman ought, as well in reason of state as
conscience, to desire that kingdom were well
reduced to conformity of religion with us here,
as indeed shutting up the postern gate to many
a dangerous inconvenience and mischief. But,”
he added, “it is a great business, hath many a
root lying deep and far within the ground,
which would be first thoroughly opened before
we judge what height it may shoot up into, when
it shall feel itself once struck at, to be loosened
and pulled up.”[#] “It were too much,” he says
in another letter, “at once to distemper them by
bringing plantations upon them and disturbing
them in the exercise of their religion, so long as
it be without scandal; and so indeed very inconsiderate,
as I conceive, to move in this latter till
that former be fully settled, and by that means
the Protestant party become by much the
stronger, which in truth as yet I do not conceive
.bn 145.png
.pn +1
it to be.”[#] Under his government, therefore,
the priests performed their functions without interference;
and this modified tolerance was
afterwards made a prominent grievance by the
Puritan party.[#]

There was another section of the community
which Wentworth was not disposed to treat with
equal leniency. As has been already mentioned,
a great number of the northern benefices were
at this time filled by ministers who refused to
conform to the established ritual. During the
reign of James these persons had occupied an
extremely anomalous position, being unmolested
by the Government, but not enjoying a legal
toleration. To Wentworth the sectaries, as
they were called, were at least as odious as the
Catholics; and the bishops whom he promoted
exerted themselves for the suppression of irregularities
at which their more tolerant predecessors
had connived. Bramhall, who had accompanied
the Lord Deputy to Ireland as his chaplain, and
had subsequently been advanced to the see of
Derry, and Henry Lesley, Bishop of Down and
Connor, were especially active in the persecution
of the Nonconformists.[#] Clergymen who refused
to subscribe the new canons were deprived of
their cures, and, in many cases, driven from the
country. Some fled to Scotland, others to New
.bn 146.png
.pn +1
England. The majority made a pretence of submission,
while secretly animating their flocks
to resistance. After the riots which broke out
in Edinburgh in 1637 the situation became still
more critical. Of the inhabitants of Ulster a
large majority were Scotchmen, and of the
Scotchmen in Ulster at least nine in ten were
Presbyterians. Between these men and their
kindred in the western shires of Scotland a constant
correspondence was maintained—partly by
itinerant preachers, partly by persons engaged
in trade, and partly by landowners who possessed
estates in both countries. It is not, therefore,
surprising that the success of the Scotch insurgents
should have produced important results in
Ireland. The Puritan party, who had lately
cowered beneath the tyranny of the bishops, now
adopted a firmer and more menacing attitude;
openly proclaimed their sympathy with the
Covenanters; and began to express a hope of
obtaining concessions similar to those which the
Government had been compelled to make in
Scotland.[#] In July, 1638, Charles, realising that
a peaceful accommodation with the Scots was no
longer possible, despatched a secret agent to
Wentworth to inquire what assistance he might
expect from Ireland in the approaching struggle.
The Lord Deputy’s reply was not encouraging.
.bn 147.png
.pn +1
During the past four years the Irish army had
been greatly improved in quality; but it was still
very inadequate in point of numbers. It
amounted in all only to two thousand foot and
six hundred horse, “which, in a time better secured,
is rather too little than otherwise to
ascertain the peace and tranquillity of this
government and subject.” The plantations in
Connaught and other parts of the kingdom, were
still unsettled, “and the people more apt, consequently,
to stir upon so great an alteration as these
will bring amongst them than at another time.”
There were also “great numbers of Scotch in
Ulster, undoubtedly of the same affections your
Majesty finds in Scotland, and by so much the
more diligently to be attended, by how much the
nearer they are to the mutual encouragement
and succours they may communicate, the one to
the other.” Under these circumstances to withdraw
any part of his small forces would be “a
means to raise and spread the flame, to have the
fire here also kindled, whilst they find us not in
so full power to contain them, as now by God’s
blessing I conceive we are.” He thought, however,
that it would be possible to raise some
additional levies, “whereof as many as may be
to be English. For, howbeit the Irish might do
very good service, being a people removed from
.bn 148.png
.pn +1
the Scottish, as well in affections as religion; yet
it is not safe to train them up more than needs
must in the military way, which, the present
occasion past, might arm their old affections to
do us more mischief, and put new and dangerous
thoughts into them after they are returned home
again, as of necessity they must, without further
employment or provision, than what they had
of their own before.” Meanwhile he intended
to move the greater part of his present army into
Ulster “as near Scotland as may be,” both to
reduce that province to obedience “and perchance
cause some little diversion on the other
side, by reason of our being so close upon them.”[#]
In November, in response to a renewed appeal
from his master, Wentworth agreed to send a
body of five hundred picked men to the defence
of Carlisle; the places of these troops being
immediately supplied by new levies.[#]

At the beginning of the following year the
Lord Deputy, finding that the disturbances in
Ulster still continued, and that a design had
been formed to surprise the town of Carrickfergus,
had recourse to an act of tyranny more
outrageous than any upon which he had yet
ventured. An oath, called by the Presbyterians
“the Black Oath,” was framed by the Irish
Council and imposed upon all the inhabitants of
.bn 149.png
.pn +1
Ulster above the age of sixteen years, “upon
the holy evangelists, and that upon pain of his
Majesty’s high displeasure, and the uttermost
and most severe punishments which may be inflicted
according to the laws of this realm on
contemners of sovereign authority.” The oath
ran as follows: “I do faithfully swear, profess
and promise that I will honour and obey my
sovereign lord King Charles, and will bear faith
and true allegiance unto him, and defend and
maintain his royal power and authority, and that
I will not bear arms or do any rebellious or hostile
act against him, or protest against any of his
royal commands, but submit myself in all due
obedience thereunto; and that I will not enter
into any covenant, oath, or band of mutual defence
and assistance against any persons whatsoever
by force, without his Majesty’s sovereign
and regal authority. And I do renounce and
abjure all covenants, oaths and bands whatsoever,
contrary to what I have herein sworn,
professed, and promised. So help me God in
Christ Jesus.”[#]

“The generality,” says a Presbyterian historian,
“did take it, who were not bound with a
conscience; others hid themselves or fled, leaving
their homes and goods; and divers were imprisoned
and kept in divers gaols for a considerable
.bn 150.png
.pn +1
time. This proved the hottest piece of
persecution this poor infant church had met
with, and the strongest wind to separate between
the wheat and the chaff. However, God
strengthened many to hazard all before they
would swallow it. In the county of Down not
only divers left their habitations and most of
their goods, and followed to Scotland, but others
were apprehended and imprisoned, and they
were kept long in the prison, till thereafter Wentworth
was executed in England. In the county
of Antrim, likewise, many were necessitated to
flee, wherein they sustained great loss in the
goods they left behind them; and yet were provided
for, and lived sparingly in Scotland under
the Gospel; and those men who were fit for war
were made use of in the levies of Scotland about
that time. The like suffering befell those of the
Scottish nation who were godly in the counties
of Tyrone and Londonderry; fewer of them
going at first to Scotland they were subject to
the more suffering. Upon refusing the oath
they had their names returned to Dublin, from
whence pursuivants were sent to apprehend those
who were refractory. Divers were apprehended
and taken prisoners to Dublin; others, though
sent for, yet by special and very remarkable
providences escaped the pursuivants who were
.bn 151.png
.pn +1
most earnest to apprehend them. Thus that
spirit raged amongst them before the rebellion,
persecuting and imprisoning all who would not
conform and take the Black Oath; amongst
whom were divers women eminent in suffering
with patience and constancy, which become the
godly.”[#]

It was by the common people that these oppressive
proceedings, for which a petition signed
by a handful of Episcopalian residents in Ulster
was considered a sufficient pretext, were chiefly
felt; but Wentworth was equally ready to strike
at more exalted offenders. Among the refugees
whom the tyranny of the Puritan party had
driven from Scotland was a clergyman of considerable
literary talents named John Corbet.
In the summer of 1639 this gentleman fled to
Dublin, where he published a pamphlet in which
he inveighed against the proceedings of his
countrymen with an acrimony which even the
persecution which he had suffered cannot wholly
excuse.[#] This production recommended him to
the favour of the Lord Deputy, who presented
him to a valuable living in the diocese of Killala.
The see of Killala was at this time filled by
Archibald Adair, a Scotchman, who, in spite of
his episcopal office, appears to have entertained
a secret bias in favour of the Presbyterian discipline.
.bn 152.png
.pn +1
Adair was imprudent enough to rebuke
Corbet with some asperity for his hostility to
the Covenant; the latter immediately complained
to Wentworth; and the bishop was
dragged before the High Commission Court and
deprived of his bishopric. He was succeeded by
John Maxwell, formerly Bishop of Ross, one of
the prelates who had been driven from their
sees during the recent ecclesiastical revolution
in Scotland.[#]

On March 18, 1640, Wentworth, now Earl of
Strafford and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, returned
from England to Dublin, where a parliament
met two days later. The financial embarrassments
produced by the Scotch war had at
length compelled Charles to summon a parliament
in England; and Strafford, who had
himself urged his master to have recourse to
this most unpalatable expedient, thought it advisable
that the Irish legislature should meet
some weeks earlier. He believed that he would
be able to extort from that body a sum which
would not only prove extremely serviceable to
his Majesty, but might have the effect of stimulating
the liberality of his English subjects. Nor
was his confidence altogether misplaced. Although
the whole country was seething with
discontent the Parliament professed the most
.bn 153.png
.pn +1
extravagant loyalty. The Catholics, intensely
as they resented the plantations, dreaded the
fanaticism of the Puritans even more than the
tyranny of the Viceroy. The settlers had their
own grievances, but, surrounded as they were by
a hostile population, did not dare to come to an
open rupture with the Government. Many of
the smaller constituencies were represented by
civil and military officials who voted at the dictation
of the Lord Lieutenant. A grant of four
subsidies was proposed, and carried with enthusiastic
unanimity. A few days later a letter
from the King was received, intimating that, if
the rebellion in Scotland continued, even this
enormous supply might not be sufficient. Two
additional subsidies were proposed, and voted
with equal alacrity. Not satisfied with these
practical proofs of their loyalty, the Commons
prefixed to their grant an elaborate panegyric
on the Lord Lieutenant, and a declaration of
their unswerving devotion to the royal person.[#]
Indeed the only incident which occurred to disturb
their harmony had its origin in the intemperate
zeal of the Upper House. The Lords were
eager to concur in the loyal declarations of the
Commons; and, at the suggestion of the Earl
of Ormond, the zealous friend of the Lord Lieutenant,
a resolution was carried congratulating
.bn 154.png
.pn +1
the Commons on their liberality, and expressing
a wish that the intended declaration might be
made the joint act of both Houses. This well-meant
proposal aroused unexpected indignation.
The Commons claimed the exclusive right of
taxation; they resented the action of the peers
as an unconstitutional encroachment on their
privileges, and peremptorily refused to unite
with them in the proposed declaration. The
Lords were compelled to rescind the obnoxious
resolution and to content themselves with a
separate declaration, which was duly entered in
their own journals.[#] On the 1st of April the
Houses, having served the purpose for which
they had been convened, were adjourned until
the following June. Two days later the Lord
Lieutenant sailed for England, having entrusted
the civil government to Wandesford, and the
command of the forces to the Earl of Ormond.

Strafford had resolved to devote the sums
which were now at the disposal of the Government
to the increase of the Irish army. During
his absence the task devolved upon Ormond,
who performed it with amazing rapidity. By the
middle of the summer a body of eight thousand
foot and one thousand horse was collected at
Carrickfergus—the point whence they might be
most easily employed for the invasion of Scotland.
.bn 155.png
.pn +1
It is significant of the change which had
taken place in Strafford’s views during the past
year that, whereas the old army had been exclusively
composed of Protestants, the new levies
were mainly or entirely Roman Catholic.[#] A
few months earlier the Lord Lieutenant had
been vehemently opposed to the enlistment of
the native Irish. In July, 1638, Charles, who
was then meditating the invasion of Scotland,
had received an offer of assistance from an unexpected
quarter. In the preceding century a
number of clans from the Hebrides and the
Western Highlands had established themselves
upon the coast of Ulster, and had subsequently
played an important part in the civil wars of the
province, occasionally assisting the Government,
but generally co-operating with the natives,
whose language and customs did not materially
differ from their own. Of these clans the
Macdonnells were by far the most powerful.[#]
During the reign of Elizabeth, Sorley Boy
Macdonnell, chief of the clan, had been engaged
in frequent hostilities with successive governors.
On the accession of James his son Randal had
been confirmed in the possession of his estates,
to which he had succeeded two years previously.
This gentleman married a daughter of the Earl
of Tyrone, and, after the flight of his father-in-law,
.bn 156.png
.pn +1
appears to have become an object of suspicion
to Chichester, then Lord Deputy. He
speedily, however, made his peace with the
Government, was raised to the peerage in 1618
as Viscount Dunluce, and, a few years later,
created Earl of Antrim. His son, Randal, the
second earl, married in 1635 the widow of the
unfortunate Duke of Buckingham, by whose
means he obtained a considerable influence at
the court of England, where his fervid Catholicism
secured for him the favour of Queen
Henrietta Maria. When disturbances broke out
in Scotland and it became known that the Covenanters
had entrusted the principal command
to the Earl of Argyle, the hereditary enemy of
the Macdonnells, Antrim undertook to raise an
army of Irish and Highland Catholics to assist
the King in the reduction of the Scotch rebels.
The offer was tempting, for the earl commanded
an extensive following in both countries,
and Charles was eager to avail himself of it;
but Wentworth, who hated all Celts, and particularly
detested Antrim, expressed his disapproval
in the strongest terms. To Antrim
himself, whom, in deference to the King’s wishes,
it was necessary to make a show of consulting,
the Lord Deputy hinted that he had perhaps
underrated the difficulty of the enterprise; that,
.bn 157.png
.pn +1
while it would be easy to raise troops, it would
be less easy to pay and feed them; that the cost
of arms and transports would be enormous; that
the hazards of the attempt would be great and
the consequences, in the event of failure, serious.
To his colleagues in the English council he explained
his real objections with greater frankness.
The earl was the grandson of Tyrone,
and therefore an object of distrust and aversion
to the Englishry. Of the officers whom he proposed
to employ, some had passed their lives in
the Spanish service and were believed to retain
Spanish sympathies. His troops would necessarily
be recruited from amongst the native Irish,
“children of habituated rebels,” from whom, if
they were once armed, some sudden outrage
might be apprehended. It would be a grave
scandal if the King were to make use of a Roman
Catholic army and a Roman Catholic general.
It would afford the Scotch, who were very numerous
in Ulster, a plausible pretext for arming
to defend themselves, and thus the whole province
might be thrown into a blaze. These
arguments were pronounced by Windebank to
be “very solid and unanswerable”; and, after
some months spent in fruitless negotiations, the
scheme was abandoned.[#] In the spring of
1640, however, the hour for such scruples had
gone by. It was necessary, if the Crown was to
.bn 158.png
.pn +1
retain any vestige of authority, to raise an army
in Ireland. It was impossible in their present
temper to have any confidence in the loyalty of
the Protestant settlers; and Strafford, who never
hesitated to adapt his policy to circumstances,
appealed to the native population. Perhaps no
act of his administration contributed in so large
a measure to bring upon him the vengeance of
the English Parliament.

The Houses met again on the 1st of June.
Although only two months had elapsed since the
last session, the political situation had completely
changed. The Covenanters were victorious
in their own country, and were preparing
to invade England. A Parliament had been held
at Westminster in April, and, having refused to
grant supplies, had been suddenly and ungraciously
dismissed. This arbitrary act inflamed
the popular discontent. The disaffected in
Ireland—and there were few of any class or
creed in Ireland who had not good grounds for
disaffection—were encouraged by the disturbances
in the sister kingdoms, and no longer
cowed by the presence of the terrible viceroy.
The officers, on whom Strafford had been wont
to rely for the management of the House of
Commons, were absent, detained by their military
duties; and the Catholic and Puritan
.bn 159.png
.pn +1
parties, whose mutual jealousies it had been a
main object of his policy to foster, had agreed
to suspend their former quarrels, and formed a
close alliance for the purpose of embarrassing
the Government. On many points the wishes
of the two parties were irreconcilable; but there
were two feelings which were shared in equal
measure by both sections of the opposition—indignation
at the tyranny of the Lord Lieutenant,
and hatred of the Established Church.
A remonstrance denouncing the corruption of
the ecclesiastical courts and the exorbitant fees
demanded by the Anglican clergy was proposed
and carried by a large majority. The
Commons next complained that the supplies
voted in the preceding session were excessive;
and, without actually rescinding their recent
grant, suggested an alteration in the manner of
collecting the subsidies which would greatly
reduce their value. Alarmed at their violence,
Wandesford prorogued the Parliament until
October, when he perhaps hoped that the Lord
Lieutenant might be able to resume his duties.[#]

In October, however, Strafford was still in
England; and the ill-humour of the Houses had
increased rather than diminished during the
recess. The third session of the Irish Parliament
was even more turbulent than the second.
.bn 160.png
.pn +1
A number of unpopular laws had been enacted
in the last Parliament: these laws were now declared
to be grievances, and an address to the
Lord Deputy was carried requiring him to suspend
their execution. In June the Commons
had resolved that the remaining subsidies should
be collected “in a moderate parliamentary
way;” they now explained their wishes more
precisely, and insisted that no man should be
taxed to more than the tenth part of his income.
On both these points Wandesford was obliged
to comply with their demands.[#]

While the Irish Parliament were thus manifesting
their implacable hostility to his government,
the Lord Lieutenant, who appears to have
been wholly ignorant of the change which had
taken place in their temper, submitted to Sir
George Radcliffe one of the most remarkable
proposals which have ever proceeded from a
British minister. The Ulster Scots were now
the great objects of his animosity, and the severities
hitherto employed had served rather to
irritate than to intimidate them. As a last hope
of preserving the tranquillity of the country
Strafford now proposed that, with the assent of
the Irish Parliament and the assistance of the
native Catholics, the entire colony should be
transported back to Scotland—a most significant
.bn 161.png
.pn +1
comment on the advantages which the English
monarchy is popularly supposed to have derived
from the Plantation of Ulster. “It will be
objected,” he wrote, “that the Scots are many
in number, every ordinary fellow still carrying
his sword and pistol; and therefore unsafe to be
too far provoked. I answer—’tis more unsafe
to deal with an enemy by halves; and that, I
fear, will fall out to be our case, if resolutely
this design be not put in execution; for who sees
not, if the now standing army be not able, without
any manner of danger or difficulty, to give
them the law, and send them forthwith packing—I
say, who sees not that, upon Argyle’s landing
and arming of them, we shall be exposed to
a most assured scorn and certain ruin?” It is
evident that Strafford, when he wrote these
words, relied for the success of his project upon
the servility of Protestant royalists and the traditional
feud between the Catholic and Puritan
parties; but Radcliffe, who had formed a juster
estimate of the actual condition of the country,
did not dare to communicate the proposal to the
Irish Parliament.[#]

That body was by no means satisfied with its
recent triumphs. In the first week of November
the Commons, acting, it is said, at the instigation
of some members of the English Parliament,
.bn 162.png
.pn +1
which had met a few days earlier, notably of Sir
John Clotworthy, a Presbyterian landowner, who
had been driven from Ulster by the tyranny of
Strafford, and now represented the borough of
Malden, drew up a remonstrance enumerating
the principal grievances from which the kingdom
had suffered under the administration of the
Lord Lieutenant. The remonstrance was composed
of sixteen articles, of which the first related
to the general decay of trade, said to be
due to new and illegal methods of taxation; the
second and third to the arbitrary interference of
the Lord Lieutenant and Council with private
lawsuits; the fourth and fifth to the refusal of
the Graces and the inquiries into defective titles,
particularly in the province of Connaught; the
sixth and seventh to monopolies, especially the
monopoly of tobacco; the eighth to “the extreme
and cruel usage of the inhabitants of the
city and county of Londonderry”; the ninth to
the tyranny of the High Commission Court; the
tenth to the exactions of the Anglican clergy;
the eleventh to the misappropriation of the revenue;
the twelfth to a proclamation issued in
1635 prohibiting gentlemen to leave the kingdom
without license; the thirteenth to the disfranchisement
of certain ancient boroughs, by which
the Parliament was said to have been deprived
.bn 163.png
.pn +1
of the services of many good and useful members;
the fourteenth to the intimidation practised
by ministers in the House of Commons;
the fifteenth to the exorbitant and illegal fees
demanded by subordinate officials in the courts
of justice; and the last to the impoverishment
of merchants and other subjects owing to the
intolerable rapacity of the tax-farmers. On the
11th the House appointed a committee of thirteen
members, four from Leinster, and three
from each of the other provinces, who were instructed
to proceed to London and present the
remonstrance to the King. On the 12th the
Parliament was once more prorogued.[#]

The committee, meanwhile, had sailed for
England, without waiting for the license of the
Deputy. On their arrival in London they found
the Earl of Strafford a prisoner, accused of high
treason, and the leaders of the popular party
busily employed in collecting evidence against
him. Ireland had been the principal scene of
the fallen minister’s activity, and it was to his
Irish administration that his accusers chiefly
looked to furnish matter which might justify his
impeachment. On the 6th of November, Pym
had moved for a committee to enquire into the
affairs of that kingdom; and the motion, which
was seconded by Sir John Clotworthy, had been
.bn 164.png
.pn +1
carried by a large majority. To this committee
the Irish agents now addressed themselves. The
remonstrance was laid before the House of Commons
on the 20th, was made the subject of an
exhaustive discussion, and was much used
in the subsequent prosecution of the Lord
Lieutenant.[#]

In Ireland, meanwhile, all was chaos. Wandesford
died suddenly at the beginning of December,
broken-hearted at the calamities of his
patron and the alarming condition of the country.
After an interregnum of some weeks Charles
was reluctantly compelled to entrust the government
to two Lords Justices, who were understood
to enjoy the confidence of the English
Parliament; Sir William Parsons, Master of the
Court of Wards, and Sir John Borlase, Master of
the Ordnance.[#] The first was an astute and
rapacious official, who had amassed a vast fortune
at the expense of the native proprietors;
the second a rough soldier, inexperienced except
in the business of his profession. The Houses
met again in February and speedily gave fresh
proofs of their unabated hostility to the Government.
During the last session a remonstrance,
identical with that voted in the House of Commons,
had been proposed in the Lords, but had
been defeated owing to the opposition of the
.bn 165.png
.pn +1
Earl of Ormond. A few days after the prorogation,
however, the principal Roman Catholic
peers had at an informal meeting deputed three
of their number to proceed to London and lay
their grievances before the Parliament. These
noblemen, with one other, were now authorized
to act in the name of the entire body; to repeat
the complaints of the Commons; and to adduce
others relating to matters which particularly
affected their own order.[#]

While the Lords were thus manifesting their
implacable animosity against the Earl of Strafford,
the Commons were adopting even more
violent measures. The remonstrance had placed
a formidable weapon in the hands of the managers
of the impeachment; but its effect was
much diminished by the fulsome panegyric upon
the Lord Lieutenant which had been prefixed to
the act of supply voted in the preceding year.
The Commons now declared that this panegyric
had been fraudulently inserted in the Act by the
earl or his creatures; protested that the matter
of it was entirely false; and petitioned the King
that it might be expunged from the records.[#]
A few days later a similar resolution was proposed
in the Upper House, and carried in spite
of the opposition of Ormond and other royalist
peers.[#] The two Houses next prepared a list
.bn 166.png
.pn +1
of constitutional questions, which were submitted
to the judges for consideration. To these questions,
which related to the judicial powers
claimed and exercised by the Lord Lieutenant,
the validity of acts of State, the jurisdiction of
the Castle Chamber and the High Commission
Court, the exercise of martial law in time of
peace, the punishment of jurors who refused to
find for the Crown, the right of the judges to
accept bribes, and some other matters of less
importance, the judges declared themselves unable
to return immediate answers. The questions
were thereupon forwarded to the Irish
committee in London, who were instructed to
communicate them to the English Parliament.[#]
Finally, on the 27th of February, Audley
Mervyn, the principal spokesman of the Puritan
party, carried to the bar of the House of Lords
articles of impeachment against Sir Richard
Bolton, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, John, Bishop
of Derry, Sir Gerald Lowther, Lord Chief Justice
of the Common Pleas, and Sir George Radcliffe,
Kt., all of whom were jointly and severally
charged with having traitorously conspired with
Thomas, Earl of Strafford, to introduce an arbitrary
and tyrannical government and to subvert
the liberties of Parliament and the fundamental
laws of the realm.[#]
.bn 167.png
.pn +1

These impeachments were among the last acts
of the coalition. An alliance between parties
who agreed in nothing save a common hatred
was inevitably dissolved by the destruction of
the common enemy. Even before the Act of
Attainder had received the royal assent, the
Catholic section of the opposition had had some
reason to be alarmed at the conduct of their
Puritan allies. In the last week of April a
petition, described as proceeding from “some
Protestant inhabitants of the counties of Antrim,
Down, Derry, Tyrone, and Armagh,” was presented
to the House of Commons by Sir John
Clotworthy. The petitioners complained that
“partly by the cruel severity and arbitrary proceedings
of the civil magistrate, but principally
through the unblest way of the prelacy with
their faction their souls were starved, their
estates undone, their families impoverished, and
many among them cut off and destroyed.”

Their chief grievance, however, appeared to
consist in the laxity with which the laws against
recusants were administered. Titular bishops
were winked at. Mass priests were frequent
and pretended a title to every parish in the
kingdom. Masses were “publicly celebrated
without controulment, to the great grief of God’s
people, and increase of idolatry and superstition.”
.bn 168.png
.pn +1
Friaries and nunneries were tolerated; and in
many places Papists were permitted to keep
schools, “unto some whereof such multitudes of
children and young men do resort that they
may be esteemed rather universities, teaching
therein not only the tongues, but likewise the
liberal arts and sciences.”[#]

The fanatical tone of this petition, the favour
with which it was received by the Parliament,
and the persecution of the English Catholics
completely alienated the Irish from the Puritan
party. At the same time the fall of Strafford
had removed the main obstacle to a reconciliation
between the King and the recusants. Urged
on by the Queen, and alarmed at the critical
condition of his other kingdoms, Charles at
length resolved to conciliate his Irish subjects.
In May the Lords Justices received instructions
to prepare a Bill for the limitation of the royal
title, and another for securing the possessions
of the Connaught gentry.[#] These and some
other less serious concessions effected a rapid
change in the sentiments of the Catholic
leaders, and the men who in the spring of 1641
had united with the Puritans to resist the tyranny
of the Crown took arms in the autumn of
the same year to defend the Crown against the
encroachments of the Puritans.
.bn 169.png
.pn +1
.sp 2
.pb
.sp 2
.h3
Notes
.sp 2
.pm fn-start // 1
Considerations touching the Queen’s service
in Ireland. (<i>Cabala</i>, II., 52).
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 2
Wentworth to Cottington, October 1, 1632.
(<i>Strafford Letters</i>, I., 74.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 3
Wentworth to Coke, November 28, 1636.
(<i>Ibid.</i>, II., 38, 39.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 4
“Certainly it is my duty to witness this truth
for his Majesty, that, since I had the honour to
be employed in this place, he hath not been
pleased that the hair of any man’s head should
be touched for the free exercise of his conscience.”
Wentworth to Con, May 15, 1637. (<i>Ibid.</i>, II.,
112.) Compare the charge made against him at
his trial of showing favour to Catholics. Rushworth’s
<i>Trial of the Earl of Strafford</i>.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 5
Bramhall to Laud, February 23, 1638 (<i>Calendar
of State Papers</i>, 181-183); Wentworth to
Bramhall (<i>Rawdon Papers</i>, p. 43); Lesley to
Wentworth, September 22 and October 18, 1638
(<i>Strafford Letters</i>, II., 219, 226, 227); Lesley’s
<i>Confutation of the Covenant</i>. Adair’s <i>Narrative</i>,
chap. III.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 6
Lesley to Wentworth, October 18, 1638. Laud
to Wentworth, November 2, 1638. (<i>Strafford
Letters</i>, II., 226, 227, 230, 231.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 7
Wentworth to Charles, July 28, 1638. (<i>Ibid.</i>,
II., 187-189.) For a detailed account of the condition
of the Irish army at this time see Wentworth
to Coke, August 10, 1638. (<i>Ibid.</i>, II.,
197-201.)
.pm fn-end

.bn 170.png
.pn +1

.pm fn-start // 8
Wentworth to Charles, November 11, 1638.
(<i>Ibid.</i>, II., 233-236.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 9
Act of State by the Lord Deputy and Council,
May 16, 1639. (<i>Ibid.</i>, 343-346.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 10
Adair’s <i>Narrative</i>, chap. IV.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 11
<i>The Epistle Congratulatory of Lysimachus
Nicanor of the Society of Jesus to the Covenanters
of Scotland.</i>
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 12
Clogy’s <i>Life of Bedell</i>, pp. 129-131. Compare
<i>Lords’ Journals</i>, I., 112.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 13
<i>Commons’ Journals</i>, I., 141.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 14
<i>Lords’ Journals</i>, I., 106.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 15
Rushworth’s <i>Trial of the Earl of Strafford</i>,
517. This statement is confirmed by a Catholic
pamphleteer who called himself Antonius Prodinus.
“Thomas, comes Straffordiæ, Hiberniæ
prorex, decem milia Catholicorum Hibernorum
militum a multis ante mensibus in armis habuit
in Ultonia.” <i>Descriptio regni Hiberniæ</i>, p. 41.
Carte, however, asserts that the officers and 1,000
of the private soldiers were Protestants. <i>Life of
Ormond</i>, I., 132.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 16
For a full account of the Macdonnels of
Antrim see <i>Clan Donald</i> by A. and A. Macdonald,
vol. II., chap. 15.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 17
Antrim to Wentworth, July 17, December
31, 1638, April 11 and 12, May 16, 1639: Wentworth
to Windebank, March 20, 1639, enclosing
Antrim’s propositions: to Vane, May 16, July 7,
1639: Windebank to Wentworth, April 13, 1639:
to Antrim, April 13, 1639. (<i>Strafford Letters</i>, II.,
184, 266, 300-305, 321-323, 339-340, 419-424, <i>et
alibi</i>.)
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 18
<i>Commons’ Journals</i>, I., 141.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 19
<i>Ibid.</i>, 156-161.
.pm fn-end

.bn 171.png
.pn +1

.pm fn-start // 20
Wentworth to Radcliffe, October 8, 1640.
This letter, which is not included in the <i>Strafford
Letters</i>, is printed in Whittaker’s <i>Life and Original
Correspondence of Sir George Radcliffe</i>, pp.
209, 210. It is endorsed by Radcliffe, “Proposition,
Scots, rejected by me and crossed.”
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 21
<i>Commons’ Journals</i>, I., 165. Compare <i>Calendar
of State Papers</i>, 252-256, where Radcliffe’s
answers are given.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 22
<i>Parliamentary History</i>, IX., 40.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 23
Charles to the Privy Council, December 15
and 30. <i>Calendar of State Papers</i>, 247-248.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 24
<i>Ibid.</i>, 261-262. <i>Lords’ Journals</i>, I., 152.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 25
<i>Commons’ Journals</i>, I., 176-177.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 26
<i>Lords’ Journals</i>, I., 157.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 27
<i>Commons’ Journals</i>, I., 174-175. <i>Lords’
Journals</i>, I., 160. <i>Calendar of State Papers</i>, 333-337.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 28
Rushworth’s <i>Historical Collections</i>, IV., 214.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 29
<i>A Sample of Jet Black Prelatic Calumny</i>, pp.
131, etc.
.pm fn-end

.pm fn-start // 30
Lords Justices to Vane, May 8, 1641. (<i>Calendar
of State Papers</i>, 281-283.)
.pm fn-end

.bn 172.png
.pn +1
.bn 173.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.pb
.sp 4
.nf c
<xxl>“1641”</xxl>

<xl><sc>By</sc> ARTHUR HOUSTON, K.C., LL.D.</xl>
.nf-
.bn 174.png
.pn +1
.bn 175.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.pb
.sp 4
.h2
“1641”
.sp 2
“<sc>On</sc> Friday, the 22nd of this month, after
nine of the clock at night, this bearer, Owen
Connolly, servant to Sir John Clotworthy,
Knight, came to me, the Lord Justice Parsons,
to my house, and in great secrecy (as indeed the
case did require) discovered unto me a most
wicked and damnable conspiracy, plotted and
contrived, and intended to be acted, by some
evil affected Irish Papists here.”

With these words begins the historic letter
written on the 25th of October, 1641, by the
Lords Justices, Sir William Parsons and Sir
John Borlase, and thirteen members of the Irish
Privy Council, to the Earl of Leicester, the
absentee Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

The objects which those who planned this
conspiracy had in view, the means by which they
were to be accomplished, and the conduct of
those who took part in the insurrection which
resulted from it, are among the most controverted
questions of Irish history. Those who
.bn 176.png
.pn +1
have taken sides against the rebels represent
the rising as an ebullition of blind hatred
against the English and Protestant inhabitants
of Ireland, entertained by the native and Catholic
population, who were resolved on expropriating
and exterminating them, and setting
up a government independent of the Crown of
England, and establishing the Catholic Church
in Ireland. Those who have sided with the
rebels argue that the conspiracy and the insurrection
were the result of legitimate grievances,
for the redress of which insurrection afforded
the only means; that the insurgents were loyal
to the Crown, sought, not religious ascendancy,
but religious freedom; that, while it is true that
one of the objects of the conspirators was the
recovery of property of which they or their ancestors
had been violently and unjustly deprived,
they were averse to the unnecessary effusion of
blood, and had no design of harming, much less
murdering, their English and Protestant fellow-countrymen.
As to the conduct of those who
took part in the rebellion, English and Anglo-Irish
writers have made charges of wholesale
massacre and shocking cruelty against them.
These charges have been not only repelled, but
retorted on the Irish Government, and the
officers and soldiers who acted under their orders.
.bn 177.png
.pn +1

In addition to sketching briefly the main incidents
of the rebellion, I propose in this paper,
so far as its necessary limitations will permit,
to discuss these different questions, and to see
if it be not possible, with the materials in our
possession, to come to a conclusion upon them.

As a preliminary step it will be necessary to
endeavour to place ourselves in the position of a
native Irish Catholic in the year 1641, so as to
see what was his lot, and of what, if any, grievances
he had just cause to complain. A short
historical retrospect will help to an understanding
of this matter.

In the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth
the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity had
been passed. By these statutes Catholics were
liable to a fine for not attending church; while
those who failed to take the Oath of Supremacy
could not obtain a university degree, practise at
the Bar, hold the office of a magistrate, or sue
out the livery of their lands.

The legal fine for not attending church was,
indeed, only twelve pence, and was intended to
go to the relief of the poor. But much more was
exacted by clerks and officers for fees, and the
proceeds of the tax were diverted from its
statutory destination, the relief of the poor, on
the pretext, as explained by Sir Arthur Chichester,
.bn 178.png
.pn +1
the Lord Deputy, that the poor of the
parishes were not fit to receive the money, being
Catholics themselves; and therefore ought to
pay the like penalty. Towards the close of the
reign of James the First, the Catholics put forth
a remonstrance in which their position is summarized
in these words:—“That their children
were not allowed to study in foreign universities;
that all the Catholics of noble birth
were excluded from offices and honours, and
even from the magistracy of their respective
counties; that Catholic citizens and burgesses
were removed from all situations of power and
profit in different corporations; that Catholic
barristers were not permitted to plead in the
courts of law; and that the inferior classes were
burdened with fines, distresses, excommunications
and other punishments, which reduced
them to the lowest degree of poverty.”

From this it will be seen that the grievances
under which the Catholics of Ireland, as such,
laboured at the accession of Charles the First,
were not confined to any rank or class, but were
suffered by the highest as well as the lowest.

The same observation is equally true of
another grievance to which I am about to refer,
a grievance that had not ostensibly any connection
with the race or the religious belief of those
.bn 179.png
.pn +1
who complained of it, but at the same time in
fact pressed almost exclusively upon the native
Irish, and those who professed the Catholic
faith. This grievance may be briefly described
as insecurity of land tenure.

In the reign of James the First the great case,
reported by Sir John Davies, under the name of
the Case of Tanistry, decided that lands should
descend, not according to the native custom by
which the Tanist succeeded to a limited interest
in the property, the estate itself being vested in
the tribe, but should descend according to the
law of England. In consequence of this decision,
the owners or those who claimed to be
owners, in order to obtain what they believed
would be an indefeasible title, surrendered their
estates to the Crown and took a new grant, on
payment of certain fines and the expenses of the
letters patent, and on the terms of paying a
fixed quit rent. Unfortunately astute lawyers
were able to pick holes in the patents. Sometimes
the officer whose duty it was to enrol them
had neglected to do so. Sometimes the lands
were wrongly or insufficiently described. Sometimes
they had been valued too low, or even too
high. In any of these cases, and in many
others, the letters patent, if impeached, would
turn out worthless. I need not remind you, as you
.bn 180.png
.pn +1
have recently had the advantage of hearing a
learned discourse on Strafford’s government in
Ireland, what use he had made of these flaws,
for the purpose of confiscating the properties of
the owners of land in Connaught and Clare, in
order to procure money for his master, and land
for the English plantation. You will remember
that among the graces which Charles promised
the Irish in return for £120,000, which they gave
him, were one for freedom of worship, one for
confirmation of titles, and one for limiting the
right of the Crown to recover lands to a period of
sixty years, after an uninterrupted and undisputed
possession, and how basely Charles and
Strafford behaved when the money had been
paid over.

Such was the posture of affairs in Ireland
when Strafford, broken in health, was summoned
to England to take command of the army fighting
against the Scots. This army having been
defeated at Newcastle, he returned to London,
there to meet his accusers, to be condemned to
death, and to be sacrificed by the King who had
promised that “the Parliament should not touch
one hair of his head.”

Strafford’s successor was Sir Christopher
Wandesford. The Irish Parliament met in
June, 1640, in a very different temper from that
.bn 181.png
.pn +1
displayed in their last preceding session. They
had caught something of the spirit of their brethren
in England, with whom they had been
brought into touch by the proceedings against
Strafford. The Commons drew up a Remonstrance
of Grievances, and appointed a committee
of sixteen, including four members of the
Lords, to lay it before the King. In it they remind
him of their liberality in contributing to
his necessities, and of the fact that in them, the
Catholic people, lay the strength of his revenue,
and proceed to complain of their wrongs: the
arbitrary decision of causes and controversies
before the chief governor, the perversion of law
by the judges in order to gratify the Court, the
cruel punishments employed to repress freedom
of speech and writing, the extended powers of
the High Court of Commission, the increase of
monopolies, the exorbitant fees exacted by the
clergy, the denial of the Graces, and other
grievances.

This committee did not receive the final
answer from the King until he was on the point
of setting out for Scotland. They returned to
Ireland three weeks after the Parliament had
been prorogued, bringing back the answer, with
all the Bills which had been transmitted to
England for the approbation of the Council there
.bn 182.png
.pn +1
before being passed. Among these were the
Bill for Limitation, which protected from the
claims of the Crown all estates that had been
enjoyed without claim for sixty years; the Bill
for relinquishing the title of the Crown to the
four Connaught counties, the county of Clare,
and large tracts of land in Tipperary and Limerick,
the title of which had been found for the
King by several inquisitions, and which were
ready to be disposed of on survey to British
undertakers. These Bills were all to be passed
when the two Houses met, and meanwhile care
was to be taken to notify them to the whole
nation.

These concessions, though, if intended to be
honestly carried out, which might well be
doubted, they might satisfy the Lords and Commons
by whom they were obtained, failed to
satisfy the native chiefs, and the Catholic population.
The Ulster plantators of James, and
the Munster plantators of Elizabeth, and the
Leix and Offaly plantators of Mary, and the
Wicklow plantators, who were enjoying the
lands of the Byrnes, were all to remain in undisturbed
possession of their estates. The
Catholic religion was still to be under a ban,
and those who professed it were to pay their
twelve pence for every Sunday and holiday that
.bn 183.png
.pn +1
they did not attend the parish church, and were
to be exposed to the disabilities imposed by the
Act of Supremacy on those that failed to take
the Oath. Besides this there were sinister
rumours in circulation. Sir William Parsons
was reported to have said at a public entertainment
in Dublin, “that within a twelvemonth no
Catholic should be seen in Ireland.” A letter
was intercepted coming from Scotland to a person
named Freeman, in Antrim, stating that a
covenanting army under the command of General
Lesley was coming to extirpate the Roman
Catholics of Ulster, and leave the Scots the sole
possessors of the province. The English House
of Commons had passed a vote that no toleration
of the Romish religion should be allowed in
Ireland, and they had shown their intolerance
by having eight Catholic priests arrested for
saying Mass in London, and having seven of
them executed. Sir John Clotworthy, the employer
of Connolly, the informer already mentioned,
and a man well acquainted with the
designs of the faction that governed the English
House of Commons, was reported to have declared
there in a speech “that the conversion of
the Papists in Ireland was only to be effected by
the Bible in one hand and the sword in the
other.”
.bn 184.png
.pn +1

The consequence was that a genuine and
general alarm spread among the Catholics of all
ranks throughout Ireland. At the same time
the circumstances were favourable for striking a
blow for religious liberty. The Scots, who had
far less to complain of than the native Irish, had
obtained religious liberty by taking up arms.
Why should not the Irish, more especially seeing
that the troubles in the sister isle made their
attempt all the easier?

Roger O’More, commonly called Rory O’More,
was descended from the chief branch of the
O’Mores of Leix, whose lands had been confiscated
for the benefit of the English colony
planted there. He was connected by intermarriage
with considerable families of English
blood. He was handsome, courteous, and able,
a man of high character, and the idol of the
Irish, who celebrated him in their songs, and
relied so much upon him that they used to say:
“God and our Lady be our help, and Roger
O’More.” He it was that, in connection with the
son of the great Tyrone, contrived the rebellion.

As early as February, 1641, O’More had secured
the adhesion of the best gentlemen of
quality of Leinster, and of a great part of Connaught,
subject to his getting the adhesion of
the gentry of Ulster. In order to obtain their
.bn 185.png
.pn +1
adhesion he, in February, 1641, approached Lord
Maguire, Baron Enniskillen. Lord Maguire
consented to join, and a meeting was held next
day to which all the Ulster gentlemen then in
town were invited. They readily engaged in the
plot. It was desired to obtain the adhesion of
the Lords of the Pale, who, though English in
blood, and possessed of estates that had been
the property of the native Irish, were Catholics,
and smarting under the affronts put upon their
religion, and apprehensive of further severities.
Colonel Plunket, who was one of the first to
join the conspiracy, and had, as he affirmed,
broached the subject to Lord Gormanstown,
and got his approval, undertook to win them
over. But he effected nothing. By and by
we shall see how they were forced to join.

It was ultimately arranged that the rising
should take place on the 23rd of October.
Every man had his place assigned to him. The
Ulster gentry under Sir Phelim O’Neill, were to
seize Derry; O’More, Colonel Byrne, Lord
Maguire, and Bryan O’Neale were to lead the
attack on Dublin Castle, which was to be made
by two hundred men, to be provided equally out
of each province by the principal conspirators.
The secret of the plot had been kept with
extraordinary success. It had been communicated
.bn 186.png
.pn +1
to as few persons as possible, and those
only who were leaders. The conspirators felt
assured that the common people would unhesitatingly
follow their native chieftains in any
enterprise against the Saxon intruder, and in
this, as the event proved, they were not mistaken.
There was this disadvantage, however, in
not taking the people into their confidence, that
the latter were left in ignorance of the objects
which their leaders had in view, and the means
by which those objects were to be obtained.
Apparently the people were allowed to form
their own opinions on these subjects, and it may
be that they thought, and that they proclaimed
that amongst those objects was the erection of
Ireland into an independent kingdom, and the
establishment of the supremacy of the Catholic
Church, and that among the means to be adopted
for effecting those objects was the extirpation
and expropriation of the English and Protestants.

Owen Connolly was a Protestant, and Sir
John Clotworthy, his master, was bitterly anti-Irish
and anti-Catholic. How the secret came
to be disclosed to him as it was by Oge O’Neill
on the night of the 22nd, is a mystery; but it
was, with the result that the attempt on Dublin
Castle was forestalled.
.bn 187.png
.pn +1

Some fresh light has been thrown upon the
events of this period of Irish history by the
recently published volume, issued by the Historical
Manuscripts Commission, containing the
manuscripts of the Marquess of Ormond, preserved
at Kilkenny Castle, the second of which
gives at full length the whole of the letters from
the Irish Lords Justices to the King, the Earl
of Leicester, Lenthall, Speaker of the House of
Commons, Sir Henry Vane, Sir Edward Nicholas,
Lord Falkland, Secretary of State, and His
Majesty’s Commissioners for the affairs of
Ireland. This correspondence commences with
the famous letter of October 25th, 1641, already
quoted, and continues without interruption down
to the 15th of January, 1644, when a letter is
written to Sir Edward Nicholas. This is the
first complete series of these despatches ever
published. The originals were destroyed in a
fire in Dublin Castle.

Whatever justification there may be for the
charges of neglect of duty made by Carte
against the Lords Justices, in not taking precautions
against a rising as to which they had
warnings, there can, I think, be no doubt but
that from the time when at nine on the night
of the 22nd of October, 1641, Owen Connolly
made his disclosures to Lord Justice Parsons,
down to the date when these letters cease, the
.bn 188.png
.pn +1
Council, according to their lights, left no stone
unturned to crush the rebellion. Parsons and
Borlase have been accused of postponing the
suppression of the rebellion in order to promote
the confiscation of Irish estates. But both of
these continued to attend the meetings of the
Council, and to sign the letters, down to the end
of June, 1643, and Borlase continued to attend
and sign the letters to the very end. The letters
afford a continuous record of the measures taken
by the Lords Justices and Council for stamping
out the rebellion.

Parsons immediately on receiving Owen Connolly’s
communication repaired to Borlase, and
they at once summoned a meeting of the Council,
which sat all that night and all the next day.
They caused the Castle to be strengthened with
armed men, and the city to be guarded, and
proceeded to have such of the insurgents as they
could lay hands on apprehended. The first was
Hugh MacMahon, whom they examined, and
who, to use their own words, when he saw they
“laid it home to him, confessed enough to destroy
himself and impeach some others.” Calling
to mind a letter they had received from Sir
William Cole on the 11th of October, they determined
to secure Lord Maguire immediately,
and succeeded in arresting him in a cockloft in
.bn 189.png
.pn +1
an obscure house far away from his lodging.
He was also examined, and admitted knowledge
of the conspiracy, and ultimately made and
delivered to the Lord of the Tower the written
statement to which I shall refer hereafter.

When the hour approached for surprising the
Castle a large number of strangers were observed
to come to town in great parties several
ways, who, not finding admittance at the gates,
stayed in the suburbs. The Council issued a
proclamation commanding all men, not dwellers
in the city or suburbs, to depart within an hour
on pain of death, and making it alike penal in
those who should harbour them. This had the
desired effect. The concourse departed. On
the following day the Council sent into all parts
of the country another proclamation giving information
of the failure of the plot to seize the
Castle, so as to dishearten the insurgents, and
to encourage the friends of the Government.

Meantime the rebellion had broken out in
various places throughout the country. The
Council did not know whether to believe MacMahon’s
statement that all the counties in the
kingdom were in the plot; but if it were so they
say, “Then indeed we shall be in high extremity
and the kingdom in the greatest danger it ever
underwent, considering our want of men, money,
.bn 190.png
.pn +1
and arms to enable us to encounter such great
multitudes as they can make if all should come
against us.”

It was no wonder that the Lords Justices and
Council contemplated a general rising with dismay.
“The army we have,” they say in their
letter of October 25th, “consisting of but two
thousand foot and one thousand horse, are so
dispersed in garrisons in several parts of the
four provinces, for the security of these parts
... as, if they be sent for to be all drawn together,
not only the places whence they are to
be drawn ... must be by their absence distressed,
but also the companies themselves
coming in so small numbers, may be in danger
to be cut off in their marches, nor indeed have we
money to pay the soldiers to enable them to
march.”

The Council soon had reason to know that
the insurrection was general. Lord Blaney
came to Dublin at twelve o’clock on the night
of October 23rd, with news of the seizure of his
house at Castleblayney, and of a house of the
Earl of Essex at Carrickmacross. At three
o’clock on the morning of the 24th they learned
that the store of arms and ammunition at
Newry had been seized. In a postscript to the
letter of October 25th they write: “As we were
.bn 191.png
.pn +1
making up these our letters the Sheriff of the
county of Monaghan and Dr. Teate having fled,
came to us and informed us of much more spoil
committed by the rebels in the counties of
Monaghan and Cavan, and that the sheriff of the
county of Cavan joins with the rebels, being a
Papist and a prime man of the Irish.” On the
5th of November they write that the rebels had
seized the houses and estates of almost all the
English in Monaghan, Cavan, Fermanagh,
Armagh, Tyrone, Donegal, Leitrim, Longford,
and a great part of Down, and were beginning
to threaten the English plantations in the King’s
County and Queen’s County, that Dundalk had
surrendered to them without a blow, and that
they were marching on Drogheda. On the 13th
of November they announce that the Byrnes
and others had risen in Wicklow; on the 22nd
that some other parts of Leinster had joined;
on the 25th that the whole county of Louth,
both gentry and others, had joined; that some
of the Wicklow rebels had come to within four
miles of the city of Dublin, and that the cattle
and houses of all the English in both Wicklow
and Wexford were in the hands of the insurgents;
on the 30th that several other counties
had risen, and on the 14th of December that
the defection then appeared to be universal
throughout the whole four provinces.
.bn 192.png
.pn +1

The burden of these letters, which are steeped
in the gall of bitterness towards the Irish Papist
and his religious teachers is principally, in the first
place, a wholesale charge of acts of barbarity
against the rebels, and in the second place, frantic
appeals for help in men and money and
material of war.

Now with regard to those charges it is to be
observed first, that much weight is not to be
attached to accusations made in general terms;
and, second, that charges of this kind were very
useful as excuses for barbarities committed by
the Government troops, and as stimulants to the
English Parliament and people to send over the
required supplies, and therefore very likely to
be greatly exaggerated; and third, that the
writers of these letters may have more readily
given credence to reports of such excesses
having been perpetrated, because, if their first
letter is to be believed, Owen Connolly had
told them that it was part of the design “that
all the Protestants and English throughout the
whole kingdom that would not join with them
should be cut off, and so those Papists should
then become possessed of the Government and
kingdom at the same moment.”

It is of importance, therefore, to see what
were the actual objects which the organizers of
.bn 193.png
.pn +1
the rebellion had in view. Presumably they
would include two, namely, religious liberty, and
the restoration of the confiscated lands. Now,
we have documents which will throw great light
on this question. One is the oath which, as
mentioned in the letter of the Council to
Leicester, of November 25th, 1641, was administered
to all who joined the rebels; another is
the written statement made by Lord Maguire
and delivered by him, about 1642, to Sir John
Conyers, the Lieutenant of the Tower. The
oath was to maintain and defend the public and
free exercise of the Catholic religion, to bear
faith and allegiance to King Charles, his heirs
and successors, and to support them against anyone
who should attempt anything against their
persons or estates, or endeavour to suppress
their prerogatives, or do any act contrary to
regal government, as also the power and privileges
of Parliament, the lawful rights and
privileges of the subjects. This oath, it will be
observed, asserts:—

.in +6
.ti -3
1. Religious liberty.
.ti -3
2. Loyalty to the Crown.
.ti -3
3. The power and privileges of Parliament.
.ti -3
4. Rights and privileges of the subject.
.in -6

Speaking of Lord Maguire’s statement,
Carte, Book iii., § <sc>II.</sc>, says, “It carries with it an
.bn 194.png
.pn +1
intrinsic evidence sufficient to merit belief, and
hath accordingly been universally allowed to be
a just and faithful account of that affair.” We
may therefore, I think, rest satisfied that this
statement contains an authentic account of the
objects that the conspirators had in view, and
the method by which they proposed to accomplish
them. So far as it relates to the matter
in hand it is to this effect:—Roger O’More approached
Lord Maguire, and after representing
in general the many grievances of the natives,
especially the old Irish, who upon several plantations
were turned out of their ancestors’
estates, and the favourable opportunity which
the insurrection of the Scots and the disturbances
in England afforded the gentry of Ireland
to free the nation from like grievances in future,
to get good conditions for themselves, and to
regain the whole, or at least good part of their
ancestors’ possessions, obtained from Maguire
an oath of secrecy, and then disclosed to him
the project for an insurrection, urging it as the
only method of recovering his lordship’s vast
estates and the power of his ancestors, and as
being absolutely necessary for maintaining the
Catholic religion which undoubtedly, he said,
the Parliament of England resolved to suppress.
Here, then, we have plainly stated the objects
.bn 195.png
.pn +1
the conspirators had in view, namely, the restoration
of the lands which had been ‘planted,’
and the preservation of the Catholic religion,
which was threatened with extinction. It will
be observed that in the design thus disclosed
there is no mention of erecting Ireland into an
independent kingdom, the establishment of
Catholic ascendancy, or the extermination of
persons of the English race or of the Protestant
faith. So far from the last-mentioned being one
of the objects in view, “there was,” says
Maguire, “a fear of the Scots conceived, that
they would presumably oppose themselves, and
that would make the matter more difficult; to
avoid which danger it was resolved not to meddle
with them or anything belonging to them, and
to demean ourselves toward them as if they were
of us, which we thought would pacify them;
and if the Scots would not accept that offer,
we were in good hope to cause a stir in Scotland
that might divert them from us.”

Lord Maguire and the northern gentry generally
consented to join in the plot on the
strength of these representations, and at a meeting
of the leaders, including Sir Phelim O’Neill,
and Lord Maguire, held on the 5th of October,
1641, at Loughrosse, county Armagh, final arrangements
were made for a general rising to
.bn 196.png
.pn +1
take place on the 23rd, “all forts and arms
should be seized, all the gentry made prisoners
for their own better security against any adverse
fortune or disappointment, and that none should
be killed, especially of the gentry; but when of
necessity they should be forced thereto by opposition,
a rule to be observed likewise by those
appointed for seizing the Castle of Dublin.”

Furthermore, there is the “Remonstrance of
the Gentry and Commonalty of Cavan of their
Grievances, common with other parts of this
Kingdom of Ireland,” addressed to the Lords
Justices and Council in the early part of November,
1641, which was drawn up by Bishop
Bedell. In this they complain of the oppression
of governors who “respected more the advancement
of their own private fortunes than
the honour of his Majesty or the welfare of
his subjects,” of finding themselves “of late
threatened with far greater and more grievous
vexations, either with captivity or utter expulsion
from their native seats.” They further
declare “that ... we harbour not the least
thought of hostility towards His Majesty, or purpose
any hurt to His Majesty’s subjects in their
possessions, goods, or liberty; only we desire
that your lordships will be pleased to make remonstrances
to His Majesty for us of all our
.bn 197.png
.pn +1
grievances and just fears, that they may be
removed, and such a course settled, by the
advice of the Parliament of Ireland whereby the
liberty of our consciences may be secured unto
us, and we may be eased of other burdens in
civil government.” The Remonstrance then
proceeds thus:—“As for the mischief and inconveniences
that have already happened through
the disorder of the common sort of people
against the English inhabitants, or any other,
we, with the nobility and gentlemen and such
others of the several counties of this kingdom as
are most ready and willing to use our and their
best endeavours in causing restitution and satisfaction
to be made, as in part we have already
done.” The Remonstrance winds up by a request
for a speedy answer so as to avoid “the
inconvenience of the barbarousness and incivility
of the commonalty, who have committed
many outrages without order, consenting, or
privity of ours.”

We have thus in black and white an account
of the aims and objects of the leaders of the
rebels, and of the means by which they hoped
to succeed, and neither Catholic ascendancy, nor
disloyalty, nor racial or religious antipathy, to be
gratified by massacre, finds a place in their programme
or plan of campaign. To do violence
.bn 198.png
.pn +1
to any person on account of his religion is,
indeed, a thing wholly averse to the Irish nature.
No Protestant ever suffered persecution at the
hands of the native Irish in Ireland, for his
faith; and when Protestants fled from persecution,
in the reign of Queen Mary, to Ireland,
they were harboured and protected by the Irish
Catholics. Nevertheless, the massacres of Protestants
alleged to have taken place in this rebellion
have ever since been cast in the teeth
of the Irish Catholics, and made the excuse for
organized oppression and persecution. The
butcheries of Cromwell were justified on the
ground that they were a just punishment for
such barbarities, though the people that he
butchered were never shown to have had, and
in many cases could not have had, hand, act, or
part in them.

I have gone carefully through all the letters
and documents penned by the Lords Justices and
Council, and while general charges of murder
and cruelty are made and repeated again and
again, and though the writers can be specific in
their statements as to all other matters, in two
cases only do they give any details by which the
accuracy of their statements can be tested; one
is the case of the killing of Lord Caulfield, who
was undoubtedly shot dead while a prisoner on
.bn 199.png
.pn +1
the 1st of March, 1642; the other is the case of
Huibarts, who held the island of Lambay, and
may have been killed while resisting an attack.

If the Lords Justices and Council confined
themselves to general charges of massacre and
barbarity, the English pamphleteers were, in all
conscience, sufficiently precise. It is needless
to say that the news of the rebellion caused a
great commotion in England. Leicester received
the letter of the 25th of October on the night of
Sunday the 1st of November. He at once
caused the Council to be summoned, and they
resolved to go to the House of Commons the
next day as soon as it sat, which they did, notice
being first given to the House “that the Lords
of the Council had some matters of importance
to impart to them”; whereupon chairs were set
in the House for them to repose themselves, and
the Sergeant sent to conduct them. Clarendon
describes the scene. “As soon as they entered
the House the Speaker desired them to sit down,
and, then being covered, Littleton told the
Speaker that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
having received letters from the Lords Justices
and Council there, had communicated them to
the Council, and since the House of Peers was
not sitting, they had thought fit, for the importance
of the letters, to impart them to that
.bn 200.png
.pn +1
House,” and so referred the business to the
Lord Lieutenant, who, without any enlargement,
only read the letters he had received, and so the
Lords departed from the House. “There was,”
says Clarendon, “a deep silence in the House,
and a kind of consternation; most men’s heads
having been intoxicated from their first meeting
in Parliament with the instigators of plots and
treasonable designs through the three kingdoms.”

The King, who was then in Scotland, received
letters from Ulster telling him of the outbreak
there. These he sent on to the Parliament, with
a letter saying that he was satisfied that it was
no rash insurrection, but a formed rebellion,
which must be prosecuted with a sharp war, the
conducting and prosecuting of which he wholly
committed to their care and wisdom, and depended
upon them for carrying it on. This
exactly fitted in with their wishes, as up to the
time they got this letter they had no authority
to levy troops or make war. They appointed a
committee of both Houses for the consideration
of the affairs of Ireland, and providing for the
supply of men, arms and money for the suppressing
of that rebellion. The Lord Lieutenant
was a member of the Committee, which sat
every morning, and he communicated to them
.bn 201.png
.pn +1
all the letters he received, to be consulted upon
and to be then reported to the two Houses,
which thus acquired a great accession of power
and patronage.

Soon after the news of the rebellion was
spread in England, the Press began to pour forth
a stream of pamphlets. Some of these were devoted
to advocating the plan adopted by the
English Parliament for raising the necessary
funds for prosecuting the campaign against the
rebels, by giving grants of land that should be
forfeited to those who advanced money for the
purpose. In 1642 they decreed the confiscation
of 2½ millions of acres in Ireland, and undertook
to allot them to those who made advances, on
the following scale: 2,000 acres in Leinster to
anyone who advanced £600; and the same
quantity in Munster, Connaught, and Ulster respectively,
to those who advanced £450, £300,
and £200 respectively. Others of those pamphlets
were devoted to thrilling descriptions of
massacres and atrocities said to have been committed
by the Irish rebels. These were, Ormond
says, “received as oracles,” and the extirpation
of the Irish “preached as gospel.” As I said
before, they were not open to the imputation of
being wanting in details. They were most circumstantial.
They describe the doings of such
.bn 202.png
.pn +1
well-known rebel leaders as the Earl of Clare,
whose portrait is given in one of the pamphlets,
the great Lord MacDavo, Lord Matquess, Don
Luce, Limbrey, Cargena and others, in such well-known
counties, Monno otherwise Conno, and
Warthedeflowr, and in such well-known towns as
Rockcall, six miles from Dublin, Lognall, Toyhull,
Kilwood, Kilmouth, Tormoy, and Cormack.
The collection of these pamphlets made by
Thorpe, and now in the Library of the Royal
Irish Academy, as well as those in the British
Museum, enable one to judge of the way in which
the ear of England was poisoned for the purpose
of exasperation against the Irish Catholics.

Two months after the outbreak the Government
issued a commission to seven Protestant
ministers to take evidence upon oath as to the
amount of the loss sustained by the British and
Protestants that had been “separated from their
habitations,” or “deprived of their goods,” the
names of the robbers, and what traitorous
speeches were uttered by the robbers or others.
It is to be observed that in this Commission
there is no mention of murder or violence. By
a supplemental commission of the 18th of
January, 1642, it was extended so as to include
an inquiry as to “what violence was done by the
robbers, and how often and what number have
.bn 203.png
.pn +1
been murthered or perished afterwards on the
way to Dublin or elsewhere.” This addition was
an afterthought, and the fact is very significant,
as pointed out by Prendergast, <i>Cromwellian
Settlement</i>, p. 60. A mass of such depositions
was taken, and are now in the Library of Trinity
College, Dublin. I have not perused them, but
every historian who has done so, and has formed
an impartial judgment upon them, has pronounced
them to be practically worthless as
evidence against the rebels. In the first place
they were <i>exparte</i> statements, made in the absence
of those whose conduct they impugned.
Secondly, they were very largely hearsay, and
not the evidence of eye witnesses. Thirdly,
many of them are not made on oath. Fourthly,
they were to a great extent made by persons
intending to make claims for restitution and
compensation, and may therefore be expected to
be exaggerated, if not unfounded. Fifthly, they
bear internal evidence of untruth, many of them
deposing to apparitions and other supernatural
phenomena. Sixthly, they in many instances
gave evidence of the deaths of people who long
survived the rebellion. Seventhly, many of the
deponents were illiterate. Lastly, they afford
no safe basis for a calculation of the numbers
stated to have been killed, for the same alleged
.bn 204.png
.pn +1
outrage is obviously referred to in different
depositions.

The calculations made by English writers of
the numbers slaughtered by the Irish are curiously
conflicting. Milton, in his observations on
the “Articles of Peace between the Earl of
Ormond and the Irish,” set down the number
“assassinated and cut to pieces by those Irish
barbarians” at 200,000, which was about the
total Protestant population of Ireland, inclusive
of soldiers in garrison and officials in Dublin.
The Lords Justices and Council in their despatch
to the King, dated March, 1642-3, in opposition
to any accommodation with the rebels,
upon an alleged acknowledgment “by their
priests appointed to collect the numbers,” set the
number down at 154,000 “before the end of
March last, ... besides many thousand others
since that time.” Temple, whose object also
was to obstruct the peace, says that in the first
two months of the rebellion 150,000 had been
massacred, and that “there were 300,000 Protestants
murdered in cold blood or destroyed in
some other way, <i>or</i> expelled from their habitations
from the 23rd of October, 1641, to the
cessation made on the 16th of September, 1643.”
Petty fixes the number at 37,000, Walsh at
20,000. The Rev. Dr. Warner, a Fellow of
.bn 205.png
.pn +1
Trinity College, Dublin, who describes many of
the depositions as “incredible,” “ridiculous,” and
“contradictory,” carefully examined the thirty-two
closely written volumes which are in the
library of Trinity College, with the result that
he concluded that “the number of people killed
upon <i>positive</i> evidence collected in two years
after the rebellion broke out, adding them all
together, amounts to only 2,109, on <i>the reports
of other Protestants</i>, 1,619 more, and on <i>the reports
of some of the rebels</i> a further number of
300, the whole making 4,028. Besides these
numbers there is in the same collection evidence
<i>on the report of others</i> of 8,000 killed by ill-usage.”
These numbers he considered were the
utmost to which “the cruelties of the Irish out
of war” could be extended, though, having regard
to the nature of several of the depositions,
he could not in his conscience charge them with
such a number of murders. In corroboration of
his figures he quotes a letter which he copied
from the Council books in Dublin written on the
5th of May, 1652, from the Parliament Commissioners
in Ireland to the English Parliament, in
which the Commissioners tell them that it appears
“besides 848 families there were killed,
hanged, burned, and drowned 6,062.”

That the rebellion at its first outbreak was not
.bn 206.png
.pn +1
accompanied by any massacre, or even by considerable
effusion of blood, appears from documents
now extant. Lord Chichester wrote to
the King from Belfast on October 24th, 1641,
“The Irish in the northern parts of your kingdom
of Ireland two nights last past did rise with
force and have taken Charlemont, Dungannon,
Tonragee, and Newry, with your Majesty’s
stores there ... and <i>have slain only one man</i>.”
The letter of the Lords Justices to Leicester of
October 25th, does not make mention of a single
case of violence to the person. The Remonstrance
of the Gentry and Commonalty of Cavan
already referred to, issued in the early part of
November, 1641, speaks not of massacres or
murders, which the Remonstrants would undoubtedly
have deemed worthy of condign punishment,
but of acts which would be proper subjects
of restitution and satisfaction. The first
instance of homicide committed by the rebels
given by the Lords Justices in their correspondence
is in a letter to Leicester of December 3rd,
1641, in which they announce the death of Mr.
Huibarts. It is not until the 14th of December
that any massacre is mentioned, when they state,
in a letter of that date to Leicester, that the garrison
of Longford had been massacred.

Your attention has already been called to the
.bn 207.png
.pn +1
pregnant fact that in the first commission of
inquiry issued by the Lords Justices and Council,
which is dated December 23rd, 1641, no reference
is made to murder or personal violence.

It thus becomes abundantly clear that during
the first two months of the rebellion, not only
was there no general massacre by the rebels, but
there was little bloodshed. Indeed the Lords
Justices, in their proclamation of February 8th,
1642, assert that the design of a general massacre
had failed.

A period of several months elapsed between
the end of December, 1641, and the organisation
of the rebels under the Confederates.
During this period, no doubt, it was that the
serious cruelties were committed by the insurgents,
for the proceedings of the Confederates
were characterised by humanity, and the Supreme
Council would not have tolerated murder
under any circumstances, or under any provocation.
Among the propositions they made to the
King in March, 1644, was the following:—“Forasmuch
as your Majesty’s Catholic subjects have
been taxed with many inhuman cruelties which
they never committed, your Majesty’s said supplicants,
therefore, for their vindication, and to
manifest to all the world to have such heinous
offences punished, and the offenders brought to
justice, do desire that in the next Parliament all
.bn 208.png
.pn +1
inhuman murthers, breaches of quarter, and inhuman
cruelties committed on either side may
be questioned in the said Parliament (if your
Majesty so think fit), and such as shall appear
to be guilty exempted out of the Act of Oblivion
and punished according to their deserts.”
This principle was embodied in the fifteenth
article of the first treaty between the King and
the Confederates, signed on the 28th of March,
1646, and in the last treaty signed on the 17th
of January, 1648-9.

If we wanted further proof of the scrupulous
humanity of the Confederates, the following
facts would supply it. The delegates of the
Confederates in 1644, in an official communication
made to the Marquis of Ormond as representative
of the King, declared that one of the
results that they most earnestly desired in connection
with the removal of their grievances was
that when the condition of Catholics and Protestants
had been equalised they might all “be
united more than ever before,” and neither party
“have occasion to envy or oppress the other.”
These aspirations were met in the following
month by an ordinance made by the Parliament
at Westminster, by which the Lords and Commons
declared “that no quarter shall be given
hereafter to any Irishman or any Papist whatsoever
.bn 209.png
.pn +1
born in Ireland, who shall be taken in hostility
against the English Parliament, either upon
the sea or within this kingdom or dominion of
Wales,” and they followed this barbarous declaration
by a decree for carrying it out. In pursuance
of this enactment many Irish sailors were brutally
murdered, being tied back to back and thrown
overboard, and in one instance seventeen Irish
soldiers, fighting in the King’s army, when made
prisoners, were hanged. Prince Rupert promptly
hanged an equal number of his prisoners, at
which the English Parliament was greatly
shocked, and remonstrated with the Prince,
threatening to retaliate, and justifying the
butchery of the Irish. Rupert does not appear
to have taken any notice of this amazing document,
and probably would have hanged or shot
a prisoner of English or Scottish blood for every
one of Irish blood or the Catholic religion that
the Parliamentarians had murdered. But the
Confederates were too humane to countenance
such atrocities; and they refrained from defiling
the records of their assembly by any declaration
or ordinance such as that which the pious champions
of civil and religious liberty in England,
to their eternal infamy, had placed upon their
rolls.

What murders were committed at sea under
.bn 210.png
.pn +1
this ordinance never will be known. But Bulstrode
Whitelocke, a member of the Long Parliament,
under date of May, 1644, records the
following significant incident: “At the taking
of Carmarthen by Captain Swanley, many Irish
rebels were thrown into the sea.” Under date
June, 1644, he records that “Captain Swanley
was called into the House of Commons and had
thanks from them for his good services, and a
chain of gold two hundred pounds value.”

It is not to be denied, however, that in the
earlier stages of the rebellion murders, and possibly
outrages, were committed by the insurgents.
It was, of course, necessary that if resistance was
offered to the seizure of strongholds or arms, it
should be overpowered by force, even to the
extent of taking life; and what are described as
massacres were probably, in many instances,
homicides committed unavoidably in cases of
such resistance. But apart from such occurrences,
no doubt, lives were taken by the rebels.
According to a declaration made under hand and
seal by the Rev. John Ker, Dean of Ardagh,
given by Nalson, vol. ii., p. 528, Phelim O’Neill,
in the course of his trial, at which the Dean was
present, said that there were several outrages
committed by officers and soldiers, his aiders
and abettors in the management of the war,
.bn 211.png
.pn +1
contrary to his intention, which now pressed his
conscience very much, and the Dean adds, that
he heard several murders and robberies proved
at the trial to have been committed by him, and
that he had nothing to plead in his defence.
This is probably true. It was hardly in human
nature, even Irish human nature, to refrain from
taking a signal and sanguinary vengeance on
those by whom, or for whom, they were oppressed
and plundered. Besides, there can, I
think, be little doubt but that the massacres
began with the butchery, possibly in the beginning
of November, 1641, but not later than the
beginning of January, 1642, of innocent persons,
men, women and children, inhabitants of Island
Magee, by the garrison of Carrickfergus; and the
murders committed by the rebels in Ulster may
not unfairly be attributed in a great measure to
reprisals for this horrible carnage. Whatever
massacres there were must have been practically
confined to Ulster, for there were but few English
or Protestants elsewhere, and as the Irish
carefully avoided molesting the Scots in Ulster,
who were by far the majority of the Ulster population,
the numbers slain cannot have been large.
There is no doubt, too, but that O’More was
strongly opposed to all unnecessary violence, and
when we remember that the generals of the
.bn 212.png
.pn +1
Federation, which commenced its session at Kilkenny
in October, 1642, were directed by their
commission to protect the husbandmen, victuallers,
and all other subjects of his Majesty from
the extortions, violences, and abuses of the
soldiers, we may be pretty sure that little or no
blood was unnecessarily shed after the eminent
men who led the troops of the Confederation
took up their commands.

It is needless to refer to the measures taken
by the rebel leaders to check the outburst of
pillage which marked the struggle before the
Confederation was formed, and to protect the
Protestants and the English from molestation.
The well-known instance of Bishop Bedell,
whose house was the asylum of numerous refugees,
and who was himself treated with marked
respect while he lived, and buried with all possible
honour when he died, is only one example
out of many of the conspicuous humanity of the
men who were responsible for the insurrection.

But let us look at the reverse of the picture.
That the Irish “Papist” was regarded by the
English as a creature outside the pale of humanity
is evidenced by the ordinance excluding
him from quarter already quoted. That the
Scotch concurred in this estimate appears from
the fact that they adopted this ordinance. That
.bn 213.png
.pn +1
he was to be exterminated was, as Ormond
wrote to Clanricarde, “preached as gospel.”
That such a gospel was not to be a dead letter
appears from documents under the hands of the
Lords Justices and Council. “We have hitherto,”
they write on the 7th of June, 1642, to the
Lords Commissioners for Irish Affairs, “where
we came against the rebels, their adherents,
aiders, and abettors, proceeded with fire and
sword, the soldiers sometimes not sparing the
women, and sometimes not children, many
women being manifestly very deep in the guilt
of this rebellion, and as we are informed, very
forward to stir up their husbands, friends and
kindred to side therein, and exciting them to
cruelty against the English, acting therein and
in their spoils even with rage and fury with their
own hands.” We have also the directions given
by the Lords Justices and Council to Colonel
Crawford for his expedition to County Wicklow,
and to Colonel Gibson for his expedition to
County Kildare. These were to go to these
counties and remain there as long as they could
find provision for their men, and in their journey
to kill, slay, and destroy all rebels; to destroy
by fire and sword all their goods, houses, and
corn. It is easy to understand how these orders
would be interpreted. They meant the extermination
.bn 214.png
.pn +1
of the people by fire and sword, or by
famine; for, so long as there was food for the
soldiery, the soldiery were to remain; when
they left there would be food for no one.

In their despatch to the King in opposition to
an accommodation with the rebels, already
quoted, the Lords Justices and Council admit
the policy of extermination, but only <i>partial</i>
extermination, be it observed. “And howsoever
it be true,” they write on the 16th of March,
1642-3, “that all the peril and damage we undergo,
and all the arms we desired to have used and
borne here, is but (by God’s blessing) to bring
on a safe and lasting peace, yet we can no way
apprehend that it can be done <i>till the sword
have abated these rebels in numbers</i> and power,
yet not to the utter extirpation of the native
which is far from our thoughts (though some to
render us the more odious report so of us).”

A characteristic example of the methods of
the Lords Justices and their troops is given in
their letter of June 7th, 1642, to the Lord
Lieutenant, describing the capture of Baldungan
Castle, situated twelve miles from Dublin.
Colonel Crawford took it by storm, and found
therein to the number of 120 rebels, whom immediately
his men put to the sword, saving a
popish priest, whom Colonel Crawford brought
.bn 215.png
.pn +1
to Dublin, and whom the Provost Marshal
hanged. “This sharpness,” they write, “held
with them when they maintain castles against us,
will doubtless discourage them from presuming
to keep castles against us hereafter, when they
still find just vengeance thus taken on them for
their boldness therein. There was then found
in that castle an English gentleman whom the
rebels had taken prisoner a few days before, and
whom our men now released.”

This despatch would do credit to Cromwell.
There is a touch of unconscious irony in the contrast
between the treatment of the one English
gentleman captured by the rebels, and the 120
rebels captured by the English.

The letters reek with such incidents. Ormond
takes a priest at Ballymacur, Westmeath, “who
was then immediately hanged.” Monck, on his
way to join Ormond, captures a castle at Knock,
near Trim, “killed four score men which had
maintained it against him, and took some prisoners,
who were instantly hanged.” Monck,
again, took at the castles of Rathcoffey and
Clongowes Wood, in Kildare, “three score and
ten prisoners, and amongst the rest some priests,
whom with the rest he brought hither to be proceeded
with as we should think fit, which was all
the quarter he gave them, and we have appointed
.bn 216.png
.pn +1
them to be executed by martial law.”
“We lately sent abroad two parties of the army,
one towards Catherlagh, thirty-two miles from
this city, and the other towards Arklow, thirty-six
miles from hence, with direction to burn and
spoil all the way, as they went and came, which
they did accordingly.” Lord Inchiquin in Cork
took fifty prisoners, “divers of them men of
quality, and most of them officers in the army of
the rebels, which fifty prisoners Lord Inchiquin
caused to be hanged the next morning, saving
only Colonel Butler, son of the traitor Lord
Viscount Ikerrin, and one Purgett, Commissary
General of the rebel army, which two still
remain prisoners.” Lord Lisle’s performances
are thus described: “Lord Lisle hath now
caused that house”—Lord Fingall’s house near
Virginia—“and all the villages and towns adjoining
to be burnt, as also all the corn, hay,
and turf in all that country round about them.
He still proceeds in burning, wasting, spoiling,
and destroying all the country about him, and
all the rebels’ corn, hay and turf, and in depriving
the rebels of all the cattle he can ... so as
by that time he returns thence he will, by God’s
assistance, have all that country in such a condition
as that the rebels shall have neither house
to lodge, nor food, nor fire, which course also
.bn 217.png
.pn +1
we have begun, and God willing, shall hold in
other places, as we shall be enabled by supply of
provisions, and we have hoped (by the blessing
of God upon our endeavours) if we be strengthened
from thence, as we expect, suddenly to
drive the rebels into such extremities as many
thousands of them and their foreign aids (if they
should arrive) must perish and starve through
hunger and cold.”

This, of course, was a sentence of death on
every man, woman, and child in the districts
thus condemned to desolation.

In their letter to the Lord Lieutenant, of
December 28th, 1641, the Lords Justices make
two damning admissions. First they say that
Sir Charles Coote, on his return from raising
the siege of the Castle of Wicklow, had a skirmish
with a numerous body of the rebels, slew
some of them, and in that journey slew and
caused to be hanged others of them, and
amongst others one woman that had been active
in robbing and spoiling the English, and had
about her at her apprehension some of the
clothes of the English she had robbed.

Now, this is merely an ingenious device to
endeavour to mix up punishment inflicted on
rebels in arms, with what is evidently a massacre
of unarmed peasantry perpetrated during
.bn 218.png
.pn +1
“that journey,” in which women, and probably
children, were butchered at the instance of the
notorious Sir Charles Coote.

The second admission is that four people
were murdered at Santry, which they make light
of, observing that therein “only four persons
were slain, whereas they might have slain many
more if they had intended a massacre.” The
heads of the victims of this butchery were
brought in triumph to Dublin, on poles, and
there exhibited. One of them turned out to be
a Protestant. This incident had momentous
consequences, as we shall see.

O’Connell was quite justified in saying, as he
did to O’Neill Daunt, when speaking of the rebellion
of 1641: “History has been so completely
falsified, that not only is the truth unknown,
but the foulest falsehoods have passed
current as gospel truths; the characters of the
two contending parties have been quite reversed.”

But I must hasten to sketch the leading
events of the insurrection.

I have already referred to the murders at
Santry. The neighbouring gentry were alarmed
at this occurrence. It seemed a precursor of
what they might expect themselves, and they
held a meeting and assembled their followers.
.bn 219.png
.pn +1
The gentry of the Pale had been placed in a
very difficult position. Being Catholics, they
were distrusted by the Lords Justices. Being
English, they distrusted the rebels. The Lords
Justices ordered all persons not ordinarily resident
in Dublin to return to their homes. The
gentry of the Pale requested to be furnished
with arms sufficient to enable them to defend
themselves when they were thus surrounded by
the rebels. This was at first granted to a limited
extent, but when troops were promised from
England, the arms supplied were largely withdrawn.
The gentry were thus left defenceless.
An attack was made by the Government troops
on the house at Clontarf of one of them, named
King, who owned the village of Clontarf, on the
pretext that the fishermen of the village had
plundered a bark that lay off the coast there,
and that some of the booty was found in his
house. The consequence of all this was that the
gentry came to the conclusion that their only
course was to join the rebels, who thus obtained
a considerable accession of strength, both in
numbers and weight, though the Lords Justices
made light of the matter in their letters. This
occurred in December, 1641.

In March, 1642, a Synod of the Ulster clergy
met, and it was there suggested that an assembly
.bn 220.png
.pn +1
of clergy and laity should be held to organize
the national movement. This proposal was
adopted, and the General Assembly of the Confederate
Catholics was held at Kilkenny in the
following October. They at once proceeded to
organize the country, appointing a Supreme
Council, and provincial Councils, and commanders
of the armies in the four provinces. They
made provisions for the administration of justice
in the districts under their control, the levy of
contributions, and the machinery of government
generally. Their seal bore on it the legend:
“Pro deo, pro rege et patria, unanimes,” their
coins, “floreat rex.” The oath to be taken by
the Confederates was similar in terms to that
already mentioned.

The Confederates addressed a petition to the
King, through Ormond, praying his Majesty,
“with heads lower than our knees,” “to assign
a place where with safety we may express our
grievances.” In this they complain of the condition
whereunto the misrepresentation of his
ministers in Ireland, united with the malignant
party in England, had reduced them, and of the
resolution taken by some malevolent persons in
England, “to supplant their nation and religion,”
and they disclaim any intention of disturbing
his Majesty’s Government, or invading any
.bn 221.png
.pn +1
of his prerogatives, or oppressing any of his
British subjects, of what religion soever, that
did not labour to suppress them. They refer to the
petition which they had addressed to the Lords
Justices, “but therein,” they say, “we found, instead
of a salve to our wounds, oil poured into
the fire of our discontent, which occasioned that
intemperance in the commonalty that they acted
some unwarrantable cruelties upon the puritans,
or others suspected of puritanism, which we
really detest, have punished in part, and desire
to punish with fulness of severity, in all the
actors of them, when time shall enable us to it,
though the measure offered to the Catholic
natives here, in the inhuman murdering of old,
decrepit, people in their beds, women in the
straw, and children eight days old, burning of
houses, and robbing of all kinds of persons without
distinction of friend from foe, and digging
up of graves, and then burning the dead bodies
of our ancestors, in time of cessation, and in
breach of public faith, have not deserved that
justice from us.”

The King refused to receive delegates from
the Confederates, but granted a commission to
Ormond, Clanrickard, and others to hear what the
delegates had to say. “Albeit His Majesty has
not thought fit to admit any of them to his presence
.bn 222.png
.pn +1
who have been ... actors or abettors in so
odious a rebellion,” as the Commission expressed
it. This passage went near to wrecking
the project, for in the safe-conduct sent to the
delegates these words were used, and the Confederates
were highly incensed at being accused
of rebellion. However, they ultimately consented
to attend at Drogheda, and the meeting
took place on the 17th of March, 1643.

The first result of these negotiations was a
truce or “cessation” as it was called, which was
originally for a short period, but afterwards renewed
from time to time.

Ostensibly Ormond was the King’s mouth-piece
in this affair, and he was authorized to
make certain concessions, in return for which
the Confederates were to furnish the King with
10,000 men for service against the English
rebels. But Charles, who never could act
straight, granted a secret commission to Lord
Glamorgan, not under the Great Seal, empowering
him to make further concessions. He
accordingly concluded secret articles with the
Confederates on August 25th, 1645. But the
secret leaked out. Glamorgan was brought before
the Castle Chamber on a charge of treason,
on the 26th of December, 1645, and committed.
He was examined on the following day, and released
.bn 223.png
.pn +1
on the 30th from <i>close</i> custody, but still
kept under a certain restraint. The fatal battle
of Naseby had been fought on the 18th of June
previous. Charles was in dire straits, and, as
might be expected, he repudiated Glamorgan’s
authority, in a statement given on the 24th of
January, 1646, at Oxford, which was to be communicated
by the Speaker of the House of
Lords to both Houses. In it he says that Glamorgan
had only a commission to raise forces,
and concluding by asking for a safe-conduct, in
blank, to be sent “for a messenger to be immediately
dispatched into Ireland to prevent any
accident that may happen to hinder his
Majesty’s resolution of leaving the managing of
the business of Ireland wholly to the two
Houses, and to make no peace there but with
their consent, which, in case it shall please God
to bless his endeavour in the Treaty with success,
his Majesty hereby engages himself to
do.”

The “treaty” here referred to is a treaty with
his rebellious English subjects. If such were
made, the King was prepared to hand over his
loyal Irish subjects to the tender mercies of the
English puritans.

But the negotiations for the treaty with the
Confederates went on meantime, and the treaty
.bn 224.png
.pn +1
itself was signed on the 28th of March, 1646.
It consisted of thirty articles, and dealt substantially
with all the grievances complained of.
Collateral with it there was an agreement that
the Confederates should furnish the King with
10,000 men, of which 6,000 were to sail on or
before April 1st, and 4,000 on or before May
1st. The treaty was to be conditional on the
fulfilment of this agreement, and it was deposited
in duplicate in the hands of Lord Clanricarde
to be held by him as what lawyers call
an “escrow,” until the agreement had been fulfilled.
It was found, however, that the position
of the King’s affairs was such that it was not
practicable to carry it out, and that it would be
more for his Majesty’s interest that the men
should remain in Ireland. The condition was
therefore waived.

Everything now appeared to be arranged,
when one of these incidents occurred to mar the
prospects of Irish nationality, of which the history
of Ireland is so full.

The Confederates had been obliged to rely
very largely on support from abroad, and
among those who contributed most liberally
was the Pope. Unfortunately, he not only contributed
material support and moral support, but
he sent a Nuncio with instructions placing the
.bn 225.png
.pn +1
full establishment of the Catholic religion in
Ireland above and before reforms in the political
government.

The presence of the Pope’s representative
imparted great strength to the Confederates; it
was also productive of unexpected consequences.
The Nuncio, Rinuccini, was not satisfied with the
treaty. He did not think it conceded enough.
In February, 1646, in anticipation of the conclusion
of peace, he had a protest against the
treaty drawn up and signed by several of the
prelates, based on the principle that those who
entered into it, or supported or favoured it, violated
their oath. The peace was proclaimed by
Ormond in Dublin on the 30th of July, 1646,
and the Confederates ordered its proclamation
on the 3rd August. A meeting of the congregation
of the clergy was to be held at Waterford
on the 12th of August. An attempt made
to proclaim the peace there on the 9th failed, as
the Mayor and Corporation refused to allow the
function to take place. It was then proclaimed
at Kilkenny, and the herald and pursuivant
proceeded to Limerick, but the attempt at a
proclamation provoked a riot, in which they
were severely mauled. Finally, the bishops and
clergy denounced the peace at Waterford on
the 12th, and further efforts to proclaim it were
.bn 226.png
.pn +1
abandoned. On the 1st of September, Rinuccini
directed the clergy to publish to their flocks
at High Mass, and otherwise, that they were not
to adhere to the treaty on pain of excommunication.

Efforts were made to compose the dispute.
The Confederation answered the Nuncio and
the ecclesiastics; the latter replied, and stated
that they would agree to nothing until a new
General Assembly was called; and they formed
a new government, called “The Council and
Congregation,” which was to hold office until
the meeting of a General Assembly, to be held
on the 11th of January, 1646-7.

The Assembly was held accordingly, and debated
the matter at great length, and with great
heat. Bellings, who had been the Secretary
from the foundation of the Confederation, contrasts
the proceedings with the quiet and dignity
with which those of the previous assemblies
had been conducted. A bishop whom he mentions,
could always, he says, get a shout of
applause by merely waiving his hat. After a
powerful speech by Colonel Walter Bagnall in
favour of the treaty, which produced a great
impression, the treaty was rejected on the 2nd
of February, by a majority of votes. A
new oath was then framed containing further
.bn 227.png
.pn +1
clauses for the advantage of the Catholic
religion.

The clergy thus won a disastrous triumph.
Up to this the arms of the Confederates had
been successful. In the previous June, Owen
Roe O’Neill had won his famous victory over
Monroe at Benburb. But now all went wrong.
The Leinster army was defeated at Dungan
Hill. The Munster army, under Lord Taaffe,
was defeated at Kanturk on the 13th of November,
1647, and these reverses were followed in
rapid succession by other defeats. Everywhere
there was confusion and disunion. Owen Roe
O’Neill sided with the Nuncio. The General and
officers of the Leinster army at first took the other
side, and only abandoned it when the General
found that his men were not “excommunication
proof.” The bishops were divided, and so were
the convents and monasteries. No doubt, the
laity, especially the common people, were bewildered.
The Council revoked O’Neill’s patent
for the command in Ulster. He threw the
letters directed to him and to his officers into the
fire, and he and his officers published a sharp
declaration against the Council’s proceedings,
to which they replied with equal asperity. The
Assembly met in September, 1648, and accused
the Nuncio. He embarked from Galway on the
.bn 228.png
.pn +1
23rd of February, 1649, and, needless to say,
never returned.

Meantime, efforts had been made to conclude
another peace. Ormond, after he had been
obliged to surrender Dublin to the English Parliament,
had left Ireland; but Clanricarde, who
had, in conjunction with Colonel Jones, won the
battle of Kanturk, began to distrust the Parliamentarians,
and made overtures to the Confederates.
Ormond returned to Ireland in October,
1648, and concluded a peace with the Confederates
on the 17th of January, 1649.

But it was too late. Events had marched
with fatal rapidity in England. On the 5th of
May, 1646, the King had surrendered himself
to the Scots, to be by them handed over to the
English Parliament. His head fell on the scaffold
on the 30th of January, 1649. Cromwell
landed in Ireland on the 15th of August, to find
that Ormond had been defeated by Colonel
Jones in the battle of Rathmines. We know
what followed. Those who have listened to, or
have read, the brilliant lecture on Cromwell,
delivered before this Society, by Sir William
Butler, need not be reminded of the tragic occurrences
of that dark time. But in any case they
are beyond the scope of this paper. The “Rebellion”
of 1641 ended with the treaty of 1649.
.bn 229.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.pb
.sp 4
.nf c
<xxl>THE CONFEDERATION OF KILKENNY</xxl>

<xl><sc>By JAMES DONELAN, M.Ch.</sc>, M.B.,</xl>

<i>Chevalier of the Crown of Italy</i>
.nf-
.bn 230.png
.pn +1
.bn 231.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.pb
.sp 4
.nf c
The Confederation of Kilkenny
.nf-
.sp 2
<sc>The</sc> period we are about to deal with is one of
the most important, perhaps the most important
of modern Irish history, as the events of that
time influenced the destinies of Ireland more
profoundly than anything that went before, and
by their effects, continue to profoundly influence
them even in our own times. It is also the
most confused, not to say confusing, period of
the history of Ireland or any other country that
a student can attempt to deal with. Carlyle,
rarely just to Ireland, in this instance describes
it with both force and faithfulness, when due
allowance is made for his prejudices. “The
history of it,” he says, “does not form itself into
a picture, but remains only as a huge blot, an
indiscriminate blackness, which the human
memory cannot willingly charge itself with!
There are Parties on the back of Parties, at war
with the world and with each other. There are
Catholics of the Pale, demanding freedom of religion
under my Lord this and my Lord that.
.bn 232.png
.pn +1
There are Old-Irish Catholics under Pope’s
Nuncios under Abbas O’Teague of the excommunications
and Owen Roe O’Neill demanding,
not religious freedom only, but what we now
call ‘Repeal of the Union,’ and unable to agree
with the Catholics of the English Pale. Then
there are Ormond Royalists of the Episcopalian
and mixed creeds, strong for King without
Covenant; Ulster and other Presbyterians,
strong for King and Covenant; lastly, Michael
Jones, and the Commonwealth of England, who
want neither King nor Covenant. All these
plunging and tumbling for the last eight years,
have made of Ireland and its affairs, the black
unutterable blot we speak of.” The object of
this paper is to remove some of the blackness,
and attempt to set forth clearly, if possible within
the limits allowed, the relations and interactions
of these various parties.

A brief reference to the rebellion of 1641 in
Ulster gives us the most convenient starting-point.
The dispossessed Clansmen, availing of
the troubles between Charles I and the English
Parliament, suddenly seized on their ancestral
lands and drove out the settlers. Much has been
written of the cruelties of both sides in a keen
struggle for existence in a semi-barbarous age.
The insurgents have been charged with a massacre
.bn 233.png
.pn +1
of Protestants, the number of slain, according
to some accounts, being greater than that of
the whole English population of the island, as
if the outbreak were one undertaken from religious
motives. Religion had nothing to do with
it. It was the eternal Land Question in its original
and most crude form—nothing more. It
was unfortunate as furnishing a valuable pretext
that was readily availed of for a general confiscation
by the Puritan Parliament that the
settlers were Scotch and English Protestants,
but it cannot be doubted that, had they been
Spaniards or Italians with an Archbishop at
their head, they would have fared in precisely
the same manner. From the point of view of
the great mass of the Irish proprietors both
Old-Irish and Anglo-Irish, it was an enormous
tactical blunder.

A detail of the rebellion which had serious
consequences, was the use of a forged Commission
from Charles I, whereby some chiefs and
others of the old proprietors who were hanging
back, were induced to come out. Charles was
in Edinburgh collecting evidence against the
Inviters at the time of the outbreak, but was
unwilling to leave until he had finished. Seeing,
however, the use that would be made of any
hesitation on his part in putting down a rebellion
.bn 234.png
.pn +1
alleged to have been organized under his
Commission, he ordered the Parliament to
arrange for sending an Army into Ireland. That
Assembly strung to the highest pitch of fanatical
fury by the grossly exaggerated accounts
of the Lords Justices and others interested in
future forfeitures in February, 1642, passed an
Act whereby 2,500,000 acres of Irish land in
parts not concerned in the rebellion, were
offered as security to whomsoever should subscribe
towards the raising of the army.

On the 8th April, 1642, the King offered to go
to Ireland and take command of the English
garrison against the rebels, but the Parliament,
believing he intended only to bring those troops
into England, told him if he went, it would be
looked on as an act of abdication. It can easily
be seen that the rebellion was a great advantage
to the Parliament, since the King could not withdraw
his troops from Ireland without giving support
to the story circulated by the Parliament,
“that he and his Popish Queen had authorized
the rising.” But, apart from the loss of popularity
suffered by the King, the most important
gain to the Parliament was the power to raise
money and troops under the Act of Confiscation.
The subscriptions obtained from the adventurers,
or, as we should now call them, shareholders,
.bn 235.png
.pn +1
were not to be paid into the Royal Exchequer,
but to a Committee composed of
Members of the House of Commons and Adventurers,
and these were to appoint the Commander
and Officers, the King being allowed only
to sign the Commissions. The lands of the Irish
were not to be set out to the adventurers until
Parliament should declare the war at an end.
The King was also deprived of the power to
pardon the insurgents, for the effect of pardons
would be to deprive the adventurers of their
security. In this way, the mass of the Irish
proprietors would be forced into rebellion, while
for that reason the King would be prevented
from entering into any terms with them, whereby
he might call the English garrison in Ireland
to his assistance in the coming struggle with
the Parliament, or receive help from the
insurgents.

In considering the attitude of the Parliament
and the English people in all these
matters, it must not be forgotten that they were
then about to be forced into a life and death
struggle against an autocracy. They knew that
Strafford had, but a short time before, declared
the King’s Government to be as autocratic in
Ireland as that of any absolute monarch in
Europe, and that both he and the King had
.bn 236.png
.pn +1
lively hopes of bringing about the end of parliamentary
government in England. They had an
acute dread that the King’s power in Ireland
might be greater than it really was, and that it
would be used to crush their liberties. For this
reason, if for no other, they were more determined
than ever to extinguish the Irish as a
nation. We know now that Charles was an
admirer and correspondent of that Alexis
Romanoff, who, after swearing to uphold them,
had destroyed such germs of representative
Government as then existed in Russia, and
which the Russian people are still vainly striving
to recover. After bearing with the King’s tyranny,
vacillation, and faithlessness through
many years, the time was now rapidly approaching
when the conflict between the principles of
autocracy and those of popular government
would have to be decided by the sword.

Of the religious intolerance shown by all
parties in these dissensions, it can only be said
that men’s minds were yet quite unprepared to
accept, or even understand, anything like toleration,
and when opposing creeds met in open
hostilities, both sides were often disgraced by
cruelties that showed they were little influenced
by such Christian principles as they were supposed
to hold in common.
.bn 237.png
.pn +1

The Executive Government in Dublin Castle
was, during most of the period with which we
are concerned, in the hands of the Lords Justices
in the absence of Lord Leicester, who had
been appointed Lord Lieutenant, but who,
already inclining to the popular side in England,
never took up his office. The Lords Justices
were, nominally, Sir William Parsons and Sir
John Borlase. Parsons, from a needy and vulgar
adventurer, by the grasping chicanery then, and
long after necessary to the establishment of a
great position in Ireland, had wormed his way
into his present eminence. Sir John Borlase,
the Commander of the Ordnance, was an old
soldier, well stricken in years, and practically a
nonentity by the side of his powerful colleague.
The English garrison in Ireland, already largely
imbued with Puritan principles, was under the
command of the Earl—afterwards Marquis—of
Ormond.

The character of Ormond has been viewed
from so many standpoints, that it is difficult
to decide impartially between the extremely
different views given of it. He was originally a
Catholic, but taken to England by the Court of
Wards in his youth, had been brought up a
Protestant. By birth, the head of one of the
greatest Catholic Anglo-Irish families of the
.bn 238.png
.pn +1
Pale, amongst whom he had many relatives and
connections, he naturally sympathised with them
in their troubles, but he also shared with them
the firm belief that they were not Irish, but
merely English colonists in Ireland. A fervent
Royalist, devoted to the King and his interests,
as long as there was any chance of helping him,
he was distrusted by the Lords Justices, especially
Parsons, “the guiding spirit of confiscation
and destruction,” to such an extent, that even
on such military expeditions as he undertook
against the insurgents by their orders, he was
constantly thwarted, interfered with, and even
recalled when he had gained some success, lest,
by his means, the King’s party should grow too
strong for that of the Parliament. He was in a
most difficult position, and it always seemed to
me an error to denounce Ormond as a traitor to
the Irish cause. He entered into no engagements
to serve it, though he was disposed, as far
as possible, to favour his kinsmen and dependents
of the Pale, but he was, first of all, an
English colonist, a soldier in the King’s service,
with no pretensions to any feeling of Irish
nationality, which, as a matter of fact, far from
having displaced the narrower ties of clanship,
was even then, only approaching the throes of
birth.
.bn 239.png
.pn +1

For some years, the Catholic Anglo-Irish proprietors,
especially of the Pale, had been endeavouring,
but in vain, to come to some
accommodation with the King, heedless of what
might befall their hereditary enemies, the Old-Irish.
They had addressed petitions and remonstrances
to Charles, but these, for the most
part, had been suppressed by the Lords Justices.
It would be impossible, in this rapid
sketch to trace the course of these earlier
negotiations. The passing of the Acts of Confiscation
were a rude awakening for the Anglo-Irish.
They were at once made to feel that for
all their claims to English descent, they were
looked on by those in power in England not as
Englishmen, not even as “merely Englishmen
with bad accents,” but purely and simply as Irish
Papists, fomenters and favourers of rebellion
and murder, whom it would be meritorious to
exterminate.

They were accordingly forced, though, as they
truthfully declared, most reluctantly, to ally
themselves with the Old-Irish. This they did in
a half-hearted way, being, most of them, rather
inclined to temporise with the King through
Ormond than to boldly adopt the policy of their
allies, and by securing with their help the command
of the country, be in a position to dictate
.bn 240.png
.pn +1
terms. At a Synod of the Clergy of the Province
of Armagh, in March, 1642, it was decided
that an Assembly, representative of the whole
of Ireland, should be convened. In May, a meeting
of the clergy and principal laity took place
at Kilkenny, and a Supreme Council of nine
members was chosen as a Provisional Government
to arrange the convention of the General
Assembly. When the Lords Justices heard of
the establishment of the Catholic Confederacy,
they and the Irish House of Commons took
steps to prohibit all intercourse with Catholics,
and the House resolved that no one refusing the
Oaths of Supremacy should be allowed to sit.
The General Assembly of the Confederation
held its first meeting on October 24, and the
Rev. Father Meehan, in his <i>History of the
Confederation of Kilkenny</i>, draws a glowing
picture of the scene in St. Canice’s, where, for
the first time probably since the battle of Clontarf,
the representatives of the Irish nation
assembled together for a common national object.
Every county and every borough had
chosen its representatives, and the body thus
deputed was practically an Irish Parliament,
though out of respect for the King, not having
been summoned by his writs, it disclaimed that
title. Its first business was to elect a new
.bn 241.png
.pn +1
Supreme Council of twenty-five members.
There were also Provincial and County Councils.
The cumbrous procedure adopted, whereby
every member of the Supreme Council had
to be consulted in all important matters, did
much to hamper its action, and was productive
of delays in a time when rapid decision was
most needful, and this contributed in some
measure to its ultimate failure to effect the objects
for which it was called into being.

Amongst the most important of the first
declarations of the Assembly, was their resolution
to maintain the rights and immunities of
the Catholic Church agreeably to the Great
Charter. They commanded all persons to bear
faith and allegiance to the King, and to maintain
his just prerogatives, while they denied and
renounced the Irish Government administered
in Dublin Castle by “a malignant party to his
Highness’s great disservice and in compliance
with their confederates, the malignant party of
England.” The Church was to re-enter on its
ancient rights, all ecclesiastical property was to
be vested in the Bishops, but Abbey lands were
not to be restored by the lay possessors, many
of whom were sitting in the Assembly itself.
This question of the Abbey lands at once became
a bone of contention between the Religious
.bn 242.png
.pn +1
Orders and some of the most powerful of
the laity, and was a potent factor of the disunion
which followed. The Assembly did not
enter into the question of the ownership of land,
beyond refusing to recognise the results of the
insurrection. Land was to be considered the
property of those who were in possession on
October 1, 1641. On this point Gardiner says:
“The land policy proclaimed was a policy
of land owners, and was unlikely to conciliate
those who had formed the strength of that agrarian
revolution which had well nigh swept the
English out of Ulster. It is, however, impossible
to doubt that if the efforts of the Assembly
had been crowned with success, it would have
found itself powerless to reinstate the English
and Scottish colonists in the lands which they
had recently lost, and it is not very probable
that Catholic Ireland would have granted to
Protestants, a toleration which was denied to
Episcopalians in Presbyterian Scotland, and had
lately, when Charles’s authority was supreme,
been denied to Presbyterians in Episcopalian
England.” On this point of Gardiner’s, it may
be remarked that where questions of religion
alone were concerned, and apart from temporal
considerations, Catholic Ireland has always
shown an example of tolerance even in ages
.bn 243.png
.pn +1
when tolerance was unknown in countries supposed
to be more advanced in modern civilization.

While the land question threatened to divide
the Old-Irish of Ulster from their co-religionists
of the South, the Assembly deliberately—perhaps
because it could not help itself—adopted
a scheme of military commands which from the
outset made for disunion. Owen Roe O’Neill
was chosen General for Ulster; Preston for
Leinster; Garret Barry for Munster, and
Colonel John Burke for Connaught, the last with
the title of Lieutenant-General, as it was hoped
the Earl of Clanricarde would take the chief
command in that province. No Commander-in-Chief
was appointed, and nothing like concerted
action between the various armies was ever
seriously attempted. O’Neill had, moreover,
little friendship for the Supreme Council, and
was on bad terms with the Leinster General,
Preston, who was father-in-law of Phelim
O’Neill, Owen’s rival, who had but lately claimed
the chieftainship of the O’Neills on the ground
of lawful heirship, while Owen Roe, though
possessing incomparably greater personal merit,
was sprung from an illegitimate branch. Of the
continued state of war which existed, it is impossible
to give any detailed account here. It
.bn 244.png
.pn +1
was a series of skirmishes and petty sieges, in
which one side harassed the other without either
gaining a decisive victory. The Royalists,
under Ormond in Leinster, and the other English
General, Murrough O’Brien, Lord Inchiquin
in Munster, were in the greatest distress for
want of provisions, pay, and munitions, and concerted
action by the Irish forces under a skilled
commander like Owen Roe, for instance, would
soon have forced them to terms, but no such
united effort was made. The Scottish army,
which had landed in Ulster under Leven and
Monroe, remained under the command of the
latter, and possessed itself of the greater part
of the province and extended its raids and forages
as far as Sligo, but for the most part afterwards
remained inactive, and was only distinguished
by some massacres of the unarmed
peasants. Of the general conduct of the war,
Gardiner says: “There was no strategy on
either side, it was an affair of skirmishes and
sieges, of raids over the wide expanse of pasture-land,
for the purpose of sweeping off the
herds of cattle which were the main wealth of
the people. Wherever an English force could
penetrate, its track was marked by fire and the
gallows. Exasperated at the Ulster murders,
and seeing in every Irishman a murderer or a
.bn 245.png
.pn +1
supporter of murderers, the English soldiery
rarely gave quarter, and, unless the accounts of
their enemies are entirely devoid of truth, when
they did give it, it was often violated. The peasants
retaliated by knocking stray soldiers on
the head, and by slaughtering parties too weak
to resist. Yet, whenever ... the Irish forces
were commanded by officers of rank and
authority, they were distinguished for humanity
under circumstances of no slight provocation.
The garrisons of fortified posts captured by the
Irish, were uniformly allowed to find their way
in safety to a place of refuge. On the whole, the
balance of advantage was on the Irish side.”

The history from now until the arrival of
Rinuccini is almost entirely that of a long series
of tedious negotiations between Ormond, acting
for the King, and the Supreme Council, for a
cessation of arms. Ormond had recently been
made a Marquis, and his commission as Commander-in-Chief
of the English troops had been
enlarged, so as to leave him independent of the
nominal Lord Lieutenant, the Earl of Leicester.
Parsons still remained Lord Justice, and the
King, did not venture to interfere with him.
Leicester had got as far as Chester on his way
to Ireland, but Charles, foreseeing that he would
side with Parsons and make him still more
.bn 246.png
.pn +1
powerful, summoned him to Oxford, this being
practically the recall of his commission as Lord
Lieutenant. The English interest in Ireland
therefore remained in the hands of the Lords
Justices, nominally acknowledging the King, but
in reality, devoted to the Parliament and the
policy of confiscation, and in those of the Marquis
of Ormond, entirely devoted to the King,
but with some sympathy for the Catholic nobility
and gentry, especially those of the Pale,
as he saw they had been driven through despair
at the threatened confiscation, to join the Old-Irish
in their uprising.

Reynolds and Goodwin had been sent over by
the Parliament with £20,000, to attempt to win
over the English garrison. The King, when he
heard of their presence at the sittings of the
Privy Council, denounced them as rebels, and
severely reprimanded the Lords Justices. Soon
after, he sent warrants for the arrest of Reynolds
and Goodwin, but they had fled to England.

Charles, by this time at his wits’ end for
forces to check the growing strength of the
insurrection in England, had turned his thoughts
to Ireland, and determined to enter into negotiations
with the Confederates for a cessation
so as to enable him to withdraw the English
garrison from Ireland. He had proposed to
.bn 247.png
.pn +1
make Ormond Lord Lieutenant, but left it to
him to accept or decline the office. Ormond,
however, advised him “to delay the sending him
an authority to take that charge upon him,” and
proceeded to the treaty with the Confederates
as Commander-in-Chief of the Forces. Amongst
the reasons other than the King’s wish, which
influenced Ormond in seeking a cessation, were
the almost complete exhaustion of supplies of
money and food for his troops. The £20,000
brought by Reynolds and Goodwin were spent,
having for only a short time barely sufficed, as
Carte pithily puts it, “to give soldiers twelve
pence a week to keep them from drinking
water.” Though Ormond had defeated Preston
at Ross, he had no provisions to enable him to
keep the field, and was at once obliged to return
to Dublin with a starving army clamouring
for food and pay. The Lords Justices besought
the English Parliament to send money, but the
Parliament wanted all the money they could lay
hands on, including that subscribed by the
Adventurers for the Irish War for their own war
against the King, so that it may be truly said
that the liberties of the English people were
literally paid for by the spoliation of the Old-Irish
and Anglo-Irish proprietors.

In January, 1643, Charles issued a commission
.bn 248.png
.pn +1
to Ormond, Clanricarde, and others, to treat
with the Catholic leaders, and this step was, of
course, at once resented by the Lords Justices.
The officers of the English garrison made some
protest, but weary of waiting for supplies, which
the English Parliament was unable to send,
Ormond succeeded in getting them to place their
hopes in the King’s power to satisfy their complaints.
The King’s Commissioners and those
of the Confederation met at Trim on St.
Patrick’s Day, 1643, and the latter presented
their Remonstrance of Grievances. In that
document they described the disabilities they
were under on account of their faith, the exclusion
of their sons from University education and
public employment, the tricks and chicaneries of
the Puritan officials striving to make fortunes
out of their unhappy position, Parsons being the
worst of these; the boast of Parsons and others,
that Catholics would be forced to change their
faith, and the intention of the English Parliament
to pass Acts for the extirpation of the
Catholic religion in the Three Kingdoms. It
denounced the misconduct of the Lords Justices,
their dependence on the English Parliament, the
Confiscation Acts passed at their instigation,
which had forced the Anglo-Irish to take up
arms in self-defence. It declared the Irish Parliament
.bn 249.png
.pn +1
completely independent of that of England,
and that the latter had no right to legislate
for Ireland. That the Irish Parliament had sunk
under the Lords Justices to be a mere section of
their own partisans, where the majority of the
members of the House dare not appear. The
document concluded by praying for a Free Parliament,
in which all matters affecting Ireland
might be discussed irrespective of Poynings’
Act, and that no Catholic should be, on any
account, excluded from sitting and voting. If
these favours were granted to them, the Confederates
were ready to send an army of 10,000
men to England to defend the King’s prerogative.

Against this remonstrance, the Lords Justices
sent a strongly-worded protest to the King
against his entering into any treaty with the
Irish. They recalled the events of the first rebellion;
the Irish did not really care for their
religion, but were so ungrateful for the care the
English had taken of them as to massacre
150,000 men, women and children of that nation.

“Astounding as this statement was,” says
Gardiner, “there was one point in the argument
of the Lords Justices which had been passed
over entirely by the Irish Commissioners. If the
Irish, after all that had passed, were suffered to
.bn 250.png
.pn +1
consolidate their power, would they allow the
English to live on an equality with themselves?...
Cynicism, however, has seldom gone further
than the cool anticipation of slaughter
which followed. They remember, say the writers,
‘that in the best of former times the Irish did so
exceed in number, as that the Governors never
cared or durst fully execute the laws for true
reformation for fear of disturbance, having some
hope always by civil and fair entreaty to win
them to a civil and peaceable life; so if peace
should now be granted them before the sword
or famine have so abated them in number
as that in a reasonable time, English
colonies might overtop them.’ ‘No peace,’ the
Lords Justices repeated, ‘could be safe or lasting
till the sword have abated these rebels in
number and power.’”

Ormond, while considering the proposals of
the Confederates as totally inadmissible, condemned
the representations of the Lords Justices
as tending to countenance a scheme of
extirpation iniquitous in the attempt, and impossible
to be executed.

Charles was desirous of coming to terms with
the Catholics without giving them any real
power, so that he might strengthen his army in
England. Though the manner in which even
.bn 251.png
.pn +1
the rumour of an Irish Catholic army was received
in England showed how dangerous it was
for Charles even to think of it, still, by entering
into negotiations he might gain time in Ireland,
and be enabled to withdraw the English garrison—at
any rate, temporarily. He first dismissed
Parsons, and appointed Sir Henry Tichborne
Lord Justice in his place, while Borlase, too old
and inefficient to be of consequence, was allowed
to remain. The King next authorized Ormond
to treat for a cessation of arms for a year, and
privately wrote to him to bring over the Irish
garrison to Chester as soon as the cessation was
agreed on.

The cessation was not, however, so speedily
arranged as the King desired, and the Confederates
were not so anxious to see Charles enter
London in triumph as to forego the interests of
religion and country. The earlier negotiations
were broken off on Ormond’s refusal of the
free Parliament asked for in the Remonstrance
of Grievances. Nevertheless, delay was favourable
to the Confederates, and their power was
still extending over the country. In June, 1643,
Ormond, conscious of his desperate military
position, “and,” as Gardiner thinks, “perhaps
willing to establish beyond dispute, the necessity
of coming to terms with the insurgents, told the
.bn 252.png
.pn +1
Lords Justices that he was ready to break off
the negotiations if they could find any possible
way of maintaining the troops.” They were unable
to help him in any way, and Ormond set
out once more, this time with the reluctant consent
of the Castle Government, to attempt to
come to terms with the Confederates, but after
nearly three weeks of fruitless effort, he resolved
to attack Preston once more. Preston wisely
avoided a battle, and Ormond’s army in a
starving condition, was obliged to retreat to
Dublin.

Ormond and the Lords Justices had now no
alternative but a cessation, and knowing that
the King was willing to treat for a free Parliament,
he prepared to resume negotiations. Some
of the irreconcilables of the Privy Council
bitterly opposed any cessation, but on the King’s
order, Parsons, Sir John Temple, and others,
were arrested as traitors to the King for having
sided with “my rebels of England.”

Amongst the Confederates, the nobility and
gentry of Norman or English extraction were
willing to accept such terms as would restore to
the Catholic Church its former jurisdiction, and
would give them, through Parliament, the control
of the Government and the assistance of the
King’s troops against the Puritan army under
.bn 253.png
.pn +1
Monroe. They foolishly believed that if the
King “gained the victory over his enemies in
England (he) would have either the will or the
power to support in England the system which
found favour at Kilkenny.”

The Old-Irish, especially of Ulster, and the
clergy took a more accurate view of the situation,
and were against any cessation, as it would only
give time for the enemy to regain strength, and
for disunion to spread in their own ranks. In
these opinions they were strongly supported by
Father Scarampi, who had recently arrived as
Papal Legate. His views are embodied in a document
drawn up by those of the Old-Irish most
in his confidence, which is worth quoting at some
length, as it is the whole case of the national
party as distinguished from those who thought
more of the King’s and the English interest,
than that of their country. “We should undoubtedly,”
they say, “carry on our work to
establish the Catholic Faith, the authority of
Parliament, and the security of our country by
arms and intrepidity, not by cessations and indolence.
For this there are the following reasons:
That peace will ever be made between the King
and the Parliament is improbable, nor would it
be to our advantage, for if they combined, we
should be necessitated to surrender. It is likely,
.bn 254.png
.pn +1
however, that before long one side will become
powerful enough to dictate to the other. If the
Parliament prevail—which God forbid—all Ireland
will fall under their arbitrary power; the
swords of the Puritans will be at our throats,
and we shall lose everything except our faith.
Should the King triumph, we may expect much
from his goodness and kindness, and much from
the Queen’s intercession. It is uncertain, however,
what laws or terms may be imposed on us
in such circumstances. The King, should he
succeed by the aid of the Protestants, would be
in a manner engaged to them. They, as usual,
would oppose freedom of religion in Ireland, and
insist on the punishment of our ‘rebellion,’ as
they style it, to enable them to seize our properties
and occupy our estates. It would probably
be thought a sufficient concession to the Queen
to allow us to return to the miserable position
in which we were before the war. On the other
hand, if we now adopt proper measures, the
party eventually triumphing in England will find
us in arms, well provided, with increased territories,
and stronger in foreign succours. Thus
they would not so readily invade us, or swallow
us up, so as to leave us without the free exercise
of our faith, or some share in the administration
of the kingdom.”
.bn 255.png
.pn +1

“It was the banner of Irish nationality,” says
Gardiner, “which was here unfolded, and those
who upheld it were at least not afraid to look in
the face the stern fact that no English party
would willingly tolerate the organisation of the
Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, or the organisation
of a purely Irish Government. If the
opportunity of England’s divisions was to be
seized to any profit, Ireland must become a
nation strong enough to hold its own. To gain
for itself the sentiment of patriotism, to cherish,
in defiance of all assailants, its own traditions
and its own beliefs, would be worthy many a
struggle and many a defeat, if only, through
suffering, it might be attained.”

The national party were not strong enough in
the Assembly or the Council to successfully
oppose the cessation; Ormond was permitted to
resume negotiations, and the Articles for a Cessation
for a year were signed on September 15,
1643. A narrow district on the East Coast,
another round Cork, and such fortresses as were
held by the Royal troops, were to remain in the
hands of the English Commanders. All the rest
of Ireland, outside Ulster, was in the power of
the Confederates. If Monroe’s troops accepted
the Cessation, they were to share its advantages;
if not, Ormond’s army was to remain
.bn 256.png
.pn +1
neutral, whilst the whole force of the Confederates
was to march against them, and the King
was even to be asked to allow Ormond to co-operate.

On these conditions, the Supreme Council
agreed to pay £800 to relieve the garrison
of Naas and £30,000 in money or beeves
for the use of the regiments withdrawn to England
in support of the King. The Confederates
were also to send Commissioners to Oxford to
discuss with Charles the terms of a permanent
peace.

Such in brief was the Cessation, and from its
very articles which prove the Confederation not
only masters of almost the whole of Ireland, but
so well provided with money and supplies as to
be able to come substantially to the assistance
of the King, we can estimate their folly in voluntarily
throwing away a position they were never
able to regain. Ormond’s diplomacy had triumphed.
He had prepared the ground for the
future sowing of dissensions in their ranks. He
could now look forward to helping the King with
the Irish garrison whose cause with this addition
might triumph, and before the time expired, they
could be back in Ireland flushed with victory,
replenished in every way, and easily able to overcome
the disunited insurgents. The Confederates
.bn 257.png
.pn +1
had gained nothing, but had placed themselves
in danger of losing all. An Irish writer declares
“that the Puritans in Dublin did swear that if
the Irish did hold out for one month more all the
Parliamentarians would have deserted Leinster....
The enemy had no commander of any repute
but Ormond, Tichborne, Hume and Monk,
while the Irish had O’Neill’s victorious army ...
ranging at pleasure in the counties of Meath
and Dublin and Castlehaven taking the garrisons
whereunto he marched, the enemy not
daring to relieve any for fear of the Ulster
(O’Neill’s) army. All the Irish got by this bargain
was the release of a few prisoners.”

It is necessary only to allude to the attempt
made by Randal McDonnell, Earl of Antrim, to
raise by his own efforts 10,000 Irish soldiers for
the service of the King, as it had no effect on the
course of events.

In March, 1644, the Confederates’ Commissioners
arrived at Oxford to treat with Charles
for a permanent peace. Amongst the first conditions
submitted, they required that no standing
army should be maintained in Ireland, that all
offices should be vacated whereby any titles to
lands were found for the Crown since the first
year of Elizabeth, that all attainders since
that period and all grants and leases
.bn 258.png
.pn +1
from the Crown should be revised in a
free Parliament in which they would form
the large majority. These conditions were
found to be inadmissible by the King, as practically
meaning the extinction of his authority in
Ireland, and it is difficult to see how they could
have been put before any English King, and
especially one in the difficult position of Charles,
with any hope of success. They accordingly
modified their demands, and now asked for
the freedom of their religion, the repeal of the
penal laws which prevented them from holding
public appointments, a free Parliament, and the
repeal of Poynings’ Law during its session, the
annulling of all Acts of the Irish Parliament since
the prorogation of 7th August, 1641, to which
they imputed the subsequent troubles, the vacating
of all outlawries and attainders against
Catholics since that date and of all offices found
for the King’s title to lands since the year 1634.
They also demanded the establishment of an
Inn of Court and Catholic Colleges, a free and
indifferent appointment of all Irish natives without
exception to places in the public service, that
an Act should be passed formally declaring the
independency of their Parliament on that of
England. If these conditions were accepted by
the King, they were ready to send 10,000 men
.bn 259.png
.pn +1
to his assistance, as well as money and supplies.
Though unwilling to agree to most, if not all,
of these conditions, Charles accepted the memorial
for consideration as the basis of a future
treaty.

Agents were also nominated at the desire of
the King to represent the Irish Privy Council
and the Protestant Royalists. These, headed by
Archbishop Usher, set out for Oxford, but before
they could arrive, Sir Charles Coote headed
a Commission sent by the extreme Puritan party
in Ireland, and hastened to the King with a
memorial praying that he “would abate his quit
rents and encourage and enable Protestants to
re-plant the Kingdom, and cause a good walled
town to be built in every county for their security,
no Papist being allowed to dwell therein.”
That he should “continue the penal laws and
dissolve forthwith the assumed power of the
Confederates, and banish all Popish priests out
of Ireland, and that no Popish recusant should
be allowed to sit or vote in Parliament.”

Archbishop Usher protested against the intolerant
demands of these fanatics, but he desired
that all the penal laws should be enforced
and all Papists disarmed. The King vainly represented
to them how useless it was to expect
the Confederates, superior in power, and
.bn 260.png
.pn +1
possessed of more than three-fourths of the
Kingdom, to resign themselves disarmed to the
mercy of those whom they have provoked by
their resistance. Even in time of peace, he said,
the penal laws were too odious to be strictly
executed. It was, therefore, plain that no treaty
with the Confederates could be made “on the
terms proposed by the Protestants, and it was
scarcely less evident that the most violent of this
party,” in the interests of the English Parliament,
“laboured to obstruct a treaty upon any
terms whatever.”

However, Charles was keenly aware of his
own necessities, and seeing that of the three
Irish parties, that of the Confederates alone had
the means to help him if they could be won over,
treated their agents with particular attention,
and as Leland says somewhat disparagingly,
“answered their propositions with that courtesy
and condescension which he had been taught by
his misfortunes.” He was willing to refer the
great difficulty of the independence of the Irish
Parliament to be temporarily decided by both
Parliaments. He agreed to pass an Act for removing
the incapacity of Catholics to purchase
lands and hold public offices, and to allow them
places of education. Instead of reversing Acts
of Parliament and attainders, he proposed to
.bn 261.png
.pn +1
grant a general pardon, and to assent to such an
Act of Oblivion as should be recommended by
the Lord Lieutenant and Council. He was
willing to summon a new Parliament in Ireland,
but without the suspension of Poynings’ Act.
With regard to the penal laws, he contended that
as they had never been rigorously enforced, so
his recusant subjects, in returning to their duty,
should have no cause of complaint that they were
treated with less moderation than in the two last
reigns.

Though the negotiations were interrupted, the
agents of the Confederation were conciliated by
these declarations of the King, and said they
confessed that, placed as he was, he could not
well make further concessions at present, and
hoped that when their General Assembly was
aware of his situation they would modify their
demands, though they themselves had no authority
to recede from them. The King dismissed
them with an admonition that would have
had some weight from a man of firmer and
more trustworthy character, but even as he was,
his words were in a sense prophetic. He advised
them to bear in mind his circumstances and their
own, “that the existence of their nation and religion
depended on the preservation of his just
rights and authority in England, that if his
.bn 262.png
.pn +1
Catholic subjects of Ireland would consent to
such conditions as he could safely grant and they
accept, with security to their lives, fortunes, and
religion, and hasten to enable him to suppress
his enemies it would then be in his power to
vouchsafe such grace to them as should complete
their happiness, and which he gave them his
royal word he would “then dispense in such a
manner as should not leave them disappointed
of their just and full expectations. But if, by
insisting on particulars which he could not in
conscience grant, nor they in conscience necessarily
demand, and such as though he might concede,
yet, at present, would bring that damage
on him which all their supplies could not countervail ...
if they should thus delay their succours
until the power of the rebels had prevailed
in England and Scotland then they would
quickly find their power in Ireland but an imaginary
support for his interest or their own;
and that they (the English rebels) who with
difficulty had destroyed him, would without opposition
root out their nation and religion.”
The Confederate Commissioners returned to
Kilkenny, and Ormond was empowered by the
King to treat with the Supreme Council on the
basis of the amended memorial. Meanwhile
the war dragged on between the Confederates
.bn 263.png
.pn +1
and the Scots and other adherents of the Parliament
who refused the truce, while Ormond’s
garrisons remained neutral. In the South,
Lords Inchiquin and Broghill continued ravaging
the country and capturing posts from the Confederates.
They expelled the Catholic inhabitants
of Cork, Youghal, and Kinsale, and wrote
to the King asking him to proclaim the Confederates
as rebels “and that they were resolved
to die a thousand deaths rather than consent to
any peace with them.” Supported now by the
Parliament which sent a fleet into the Shannon,
and disappointed at the King’s refusal to make
him Lord President of Munster, Inchiquin soon
after openly joined the Parliamentarians, and
adopting a canting style, declared that “he was
acting for the Gospel, and that if he died for it
he should be held as a perfect martyr.”

The negotiations for the peace with the Confederates
were resumed by Ormond in September,
1644, but it was soon evident that even if
the political articles could be rendered acceptable
to both parties, the religious ones promised
to upset everything. The Irish demanded not
only the repeal of all laws that hindered their
freedom of worship, but those against appeals
to Rome, and the portion of the Act of Praemunire
against Papal jurisdiction. Though
.bn 264.png
.pn +1
Charles would agree that the penal laws should
not be enforced, he still would not consent to
their repeal, and was absolutely resolved not to
alter the Acts of Appeals and Praemunire. In
this resolution he was strengthened by the
action of the Ormondist faction in the General
Assembly headed by Lord Muskerry and
Geoffrey Browne. These declared privately to
Ormond that they would accept the King’s
terms on sufficient guarantee being given that
the lives and properties of the Irish would be
safe. They would not press for the repeal of
the penal laws which they thought would fall
into abeyance when Charles was restored to
power. The King now yielded somewhat and
ordered Ormond to promise that the penal laws
should be suspended as soon as peace was
made, and that if restored to his rights by Irish
aid, they should be absolutely repealed, “but
all those against appeals to Rome and Praemunire
must stand.”

Ormond, feeling the difficulty of his position
as a Protestant native of Ireland with many
connections amongst the gentry of the Pale,
and, perhaps, also, through a belief that the
King would conduct the negotiations without
him, wrote offering to send his resignation, but
Charles would not hear of it, and urged him to
.bn 265.png
.pn +1
complete the treaty. While so many estimates
have been formed of Ormond’s conduct and
capacity at this juncture by Irish partisans, it
may be useful to quote an English opinion. Gardiner,
reviewing his conduct in these transactions
says: “Of all living men Ormond was perhaps
the least fitted to conduct that negotiation even
to the temporary sense of which it was alone
capable. His virtues and his defects alike
stood in his way. He was too loyal to throw
off his shoulders the load which Charles had
placed upon them, but he was at the same time
so completely wanting in initiative power that
he never thought—as Strafford under similar
circumstances would assuredly have thought—of
suggesting a policy of his own, or even of
criticising adversely the one imposed on him by
his master. Yet it ought to have been evident
to Ormond that an Irish army was not to be
gained by haggling over the privileges to be
accorded to the true Irish Parliament, and the
true Irish Church.” Even if the 10,000 men
had been really forthcoming, they would have
been of little avail unless those Irishmen were
heartily engaged in the King’s cause.

Before the Oxford negotiations were broken
off Charles had had an opportunity of winning
their confidence. The English Parliament urged
.bn 266.png
.pn +1
Monroe to break the Cessation and sent him a
commission as Commander-in-Chief of all the
English as well as the Scottish forces in Ulster.
He complied with their orders, seized Belfast,
and defeated Castlehaven’s army sent against
him by the Supreme Council, who offered to
place all their forces under Ormond’s command
if he would unite with them against the Scots.
Ormond refused to do so without the King’s
positive order, and at that time, Charles withheld.
No doubt he was afraid to take a step
which would have cost him most of his army in
England; “But what,” says Gardiner, “is to
be thought of a policy which based itself on the
co-operation of an Irish army in England when
it was impossible to grant to the Irish the co-operation
of an English army in Ireland?”

The King was apparently also sensible that
some other intermediary than Ormond would
be needed to bring about the only end he had
in view—the strengthening of his army by any
means against the Parliament. He soon found,
or, rather, had ready to his hand, one far
more likely than Ormond to come to speedy
terms with the Confederate Catholics, and we
accordingly approach the consideration of a
series of transactions in which the King’s conduct
has provided a fertile theme for discussion
.bn 267.png
.pn +1
Whatever may be thought of his mode of conducting
these negotiations, there is no doubt
that nothing in his whole career injured him so
much in English opinion or contributed more
certainly to his tragic end.

When the Irish agents were at Oxford
Charles had already been discussing his chances
of Irish aid with Lord Herbert of Raglan, the
Catholic son of the Marquis of Worcester. He
and his father had generously placed their great
wealth at the disposal of the King who had but
lately acknowledged having received no less
than £250,000 from them. He now conferred
on Lord Herbert the title of Earl of Glamorgan
by warrant, but in order to keep the whole
transaction private, though the warrant was presented
at the Signet Office, no steps were taken
to render it valid by patent. Glamorgan offered—and
his offer was eagerly accepted by the
King—to induce the Confederates to enter into
a private treaty for bringing over the 10,000
men on terms more liberal than Ormond was
authorized to grant, he was also to bring 6,000
from Wales, and as many as he could get from
Lorraine and the Low Countries to Lynn in
Norfolk, where the Parliament’s Commander
was ready to betray his post. Glamorgan, sanguine
of success, was to be the Commander-in-Chief
.bn 268.png
.pn +1
of the whole of this Catholic army. He
chiefly relied on the Pope and other Catholic
princes whom he expected to eagerly support a
scheme from which the Church was to reap many
advantages. The Commission to Glamorgan
was issued without the Great Seal, but he soon
overcame that difficulty. Any seal was good
enough to show to Irish Confederates and foreign
courts, and it is believed that he and Endymion
Porter cut off a genuine seal from some
other document. Charles, completely won over
by the assurances of Glamorgan that he would
soon be furnished with the means of overcoming
all his difficulties, was ready to confer the highest
honours. He offered the hand of the Princess
Elizabeth to Glamorgan’s eldest son, and conferred
on Glamorgan the higher title of Duke of
Somerset, though in the case of this title also,
the legal formalities were for the present avoided.
Though Charles so highly appreciated Glamorgan’s
enthusiasm, he apparently did not credit
him with much discretion. In writing to Ormond
that Glamorgan was about to visit Ireland on
his own private affairs, he added, “His honesty
or affection to my service will not deceive you,
but I will not answer for his judgment.”

Ormond was fully aware of the King’s resolve
to conclude peace with the Confederates on
.bn 269.png
.pn +1
Muskerry’s conditions, and it was for this reason
he had tried to shift the responsibility for complying
with them to some one directly from
England. Charles, as we have seen, refused to
accept his resignation, but he now sent Glamorgan
to persuade those of the Confederates
who were opposed to peace on Muskerry’s terms,
and to assure them that the penal laws, though
unrepealed, would never be enforced. Charles
desired that Glamorgan should be guided in
everything by the advice of Ormond, but so
desperately resolved was he on getting help from
the Confederates, that he actually gave “the
feather-brained Glamorgan a commission to succeed
Ormond as Lord Lieutenant in the event
of the death or misconduct of the latter; in
other words, in the event of his persisting in his
refusal to carry out the negotiation on the lines
indicated by his last instructions.” At the same
time it is evident that Charles did not think
there was any likelihood of Ormond being replaced
by Glamorgan, and that he counted
rather on their working heartily together. “You
may engage your estate, interest and credit,” he
instructed Glamorgan, “that we will most
readily and punctually perform any our promises
to the Irish, and as it is necessary to conclude
a peace suddenly, whatsoever shall be consented
.bn 270.png
.pn +1
unto by our Lieutenant the Marquis or Ormond,
we will die a thousand deaths rather than disannul
or break it; and if upon necessity anything
to be condescended unto, and yet the
Lord Marquis not willing to be seen therein or
not fit for us publicly to own, do you endeavour
to supply the same.” Taken in conjunction
with the instructions to Ormond, it is plain that
Glamorgan was to act with him, but with powers
to give the Confederates those assurances which
Ormond as a Protestant Royalist might not feel
himself free to give, that the penal laws would
be suspended until peace was declared and repealed
as soon as Charles’s restoration to power
would make it safe for him to do so.

On January 6, 1645, Charles issued a Commission
under the Great Seal to Glamorgan to
levy troops not only in Ireland but on the Continent,
and this was followed on the 12th by a
letter to him in which the King said, “So great
is the confidence we repose in you, as that whatsoever
you shall perform, as warranted under our
signature, pocket signet, or private mark, or even
by word of mouth, without further ceremony, we
do on the word of a King and a Christian, promise
to make good to all intents and purposes
as effectually as if your authority from us had
been under the Great Seal of England, with this
.bn 271.png
.pn +1
advantage that we shall esteem ourselves the
more obliged to you for your gallantry in not
standing upon such nice terms to do us service,
which we shall, God willing, reward.... Proceed,
therefore, cheerfully, speedily, and boldly,
and for your doing so this shall be your sufficient
warrant.”

These commissions and instructions of
Charles can only be viewed as the words of a
desperate gambler willing to promise anything
that would provide him with another stake to
hazard in the game. He was not, however, dependent
only on Glamorgan for Irish and Continental
assistance. His Queen, Henrietta
Maria, had escaped to France, and was actively
engaged in procuring troops. She had been
kindly welcomed by the Queen-Regent, Anne
of Austria, but the Prime Minister, Mazarin,
looked on her coldly. France, exhausted by her
long but victorious struggle with the Emperor
for those Rhine Provinces she was again destined
to lose, was not in a position to make any
effort from sentimental motives to help Charles.
Mazarin had also no interest in seeing those
troubles ended which prevented England from
interfering with his designs on the Continent.
He therefore received favourably Father
O’Hartigan, the Confederate agent at Paris. His
.bn 272.png
.pn +1
plans were such as to lead to the practically
complete independence of Ireland. Mazarin,
however, would not help unless everything was
done in the name of Charles, and with the
approval of the Queen of England. O’Hartigan
was soon able to report that he had her support.
A joint committee of English and Irish Catholics
had been formed in Paris and had resolved that
the Catholic Church should be first established
in Ireland as a step to its establishment in England.
By this resolution it was hoped to obtain
considerable help in money from the Pope and
other Catholic princes, but it was not so much
of the interests of the Church in England
O’Hartigan was thinking, as of Irish independence.
Sir Kenelm Digby was to go to Rome
to solicit the help of the Pope. O’Hartigan,
writing privately to the Supreme Council at Kilkenny,
recommended that after the enemy had
been expelled from Ireland, the long talked of
Irish army might be despatched to England to
replace Charles on the throne. There was another
scheme in which the Duke of Lorraine
was to play the leading part. He had been
deprived of his Duchy by Richelieu, and as a
Catholic prince of the Empire, had fought
against France. Mazarin was anxious to give
his energies some other outlet, and told the
.bn 273.png
.pn +1
Queen that if the Duke could be induced to lead
his troops into England, money would not be
wanting. The Duke engaged to enter England
with 10,000 men, and the Prince of Orange
was asked to supply the ships to carry them, as
well as 5,000 the Queen was assured would be
raised in France.

These projects—for they were never more
than projects—show why Glamorgan had a
commission to raise troops abroad as Charles
placed no faith in O’Hartigan. O’Hartigan’s
letter, in which he expressed his real hopes, had
been captured by a Parliamentary cruiser and
sent to Ormond. Charles therefore warned the
Queen that O’Hartigan was a knave, and in a
letter to Ormond mentioned that the Prince of
Orange had consented to supply the ships for
the continental troops. He urged Ormond to
conclude peace, and said that he would consider
the Irish army a good bargain even if he had to
consent to Poynings’ Law being suspended, and
to Ormond’s joining the Confederates against
the Scots; he would make no further concession
regarding the penal laws than he had already
promised. A month later, when his position in
England had become still more critical, he wrote
“If the suspension of Poynings’ Act for such
Bills as shall be agreed on between you there,
.bn 274.png
.pn +1
and the present taking away of the penal laws
against Papists by a law will do it I shall not
think it a bad bargain, so that freely and vigorously
they engage themselves in my assistance
against my rebels in England and Scotland.”
But even now Ormond was to make a better
bargain if possible, and not to mention these
greater powers except in the last extremity.

Even if Ormond were as willing as the King
to make these concessions, he had to carry on
his negotiations with the help of a Privy Council
that would not be likely to view them favourably.
For this reason the King decided that
Glamorgan should now start for Ireland with
powers not only as commander, but to enable
him to treat with the Confederates “not indeed
without Ormond’s knowledge, but in substitution
for him if it proved to be necessary.”
Charles gave Ormond a further commission
with full powers to treat with the Confederates
in such matters as had to be agreed to “wherein
our Lieutenant cannot so well be seen in, as
not fit for us at present public to own.” He
urged him to proceed with all secrecy, and promised
on the word of a King and a Christian, to
ratify whatever Glamorgan should grant to the
Confederates, “they having by their supplies
testified their zeal to our service.”
.bn 275.png
.pn +1

In the meantime the King’s cause had grown
much weaker, and it was doubtful even if the
Irish army could be landed in England, or, if
landed, whether it could be of any help. Not
only was Charles severely defeated at Naseby,
but his private papers were captured at Sherburne,
and his instructions to Ormond made
known to the Parliament. Glamorgan on his
arrival in Ireland found that a new factor had
been introduced into the negotiations by the
General Assembly’s adoption of the demand of
the Catholic clergy that they should be confirmed
in the possession of the churches actually
in the hands of the Confederates with the property
appertaining thereto as well as all derelict
churches. The Confederate Commissioners had
been instructed to yield nothing on this point,
and as Charles refused to concede anything
more than he had done already, and as Ormond
concealed his powers with regard to the penal
laws, the treaty again broke down. Glamorgan
seeing that he could do nothing with Ormond,
accompanied the disappointed Confederate Commissioners
to Kilkenny, where he privately resumed
the negotiations, and acting on the very
loosely-worded and wide instructions given him
by Charles on March 12, he concluded a secret
treaty with the Confederates.
.bn 276.png
.pn +1

By this instrument, which comprised what
were called the Religious Articles, and which
was signed on August 25, 1645, he agreed on
behalf of the King to the free and public exercise
of the Catholic religion. This, though set
forth more definitely than Ormond would probably
have agreed to, may be looked on as not
exceeding the terms Ormond was authorized to
grant. But in two other clauses Glamorgan’s
treaty was far in advance of anything Ormond
would grant or to which indeed Charles had
consented, unless we regard the secret commission
as empowering Glamorgan to promise
anything as long as he could get the troops
Charles so sorely needed. Glamorgan agreed
that all churches fallen into the hands of the
Catholics since the rising in Ulster, and the
derelict churches “other than such as are now
actually enjoyed by his ‘Majesty’s Protestant
subjects,’ were to remain in their possession.”
Next, he agreed that the Catholics were to be
exempt from the jurisdiction of the Protestant
clergy, and their own clergy were not to be
“molested for the exercise of their jurisdiction
over their respective Catholic flocks in matters
spiritual and ecclesiastical.” This naturally left
open the question of appeals to Rome, since
there must be some authority over the clergy
.bn 277.png
.pn +1
to decide what were civil and what were spiritual
cases, and it was scarcely likely that the Confederates
could consent to its being vested in
the King.

Charles had not heard of the question of the
churches before Glamorgan started, but when he
did he wrote to him on July 31, and said he
would consent only to the Catholics building
chapels for themselves, and absolutely refused
to allow them to retain any of the
churches.

It seems probable that the King was sincere
when he declared that he would look on the
giving up of the churches as the abandonment
of his religion, and that Glamorgan, eager to
obtain the 10,000 men from the Confederates,
had exceeded his instructions, but hoped to have
his fault overlooked by Charles in view of the
great assistance the Irish soldiers would be to
his cause. At the same time, Gardiner, who has
discussed this question very freely in his <i>History
of the Great Civil War</i>, and in a special article
in the <i>English Historical Review</i>, does not
make sufficient allowance for the shifty vacillating
character of Charles, and it is quite permissible
to assume that when he gave his general
instructions in such vague terms to Glamorgan,
he contemplated the possibility of having to
.bn 278.png
.pn +1
disavow any action he might take under them,
while, if such action were not questioned by his
enemies, he was quite ready to profit by it. It
would, however, seem that Glamorgan knew he
was acting in a way the King would very likely
not agree to; for when he signed the treaty he
handed the Confederates another document
called a <i>defeasance</i>, in which he declared that
he did not intend to bind the King to consent to
anything “other than he himself shall please,
after he hath received these ten thousand men
being a pledge and testimony” of the loyalty of
his Irish Catholic subjects. This document was
not to be disclosed to Charles until Glamorgan
had done all in his power to induce him to agree
to the religious articles.

On this point Gardiner says, “It was hardly
within the bounds of possibility that Glamorgan’s
action should prove beneficial either to his
master or to the Irish people; but he was surely
right in thinking that if a military alliance was
to be formed with the Confederates it could
only be by the acceptance of their own terms.
It was childish to expect the hearty co-operation
of the Irish if their Church was to be maintained
in the position of a merely tolerated sect, the
organisation of which was in constant danger of
a sudden application of the Statutes of Appeal
.bn 279.png
.pn +1
and Præmunire; and if the ecclesiastical lands
and buildings set apart for religious use by their
ancestors, and now recovered after a deprivation
of less than a century, were to be forcibly torn
from them, and restored to the professors of an
alien creed, from whom they had nothing but
persecution to expect.”

The Supreme Council of the Confederates at
once proceeded to test the new alliance they
thought they had formed, and on August 29,
asked Ormond to join his forces with theirs
against the Scots under Monroe in Ulster, but
Ormond gave no reply though pressed by
Glamorgan, who assured him that the Confederates
would now send the 10,000 men to
England, and would resume the treaty for the
political articles with Ormond. Glamorgan
begged Ormond to grant as much as possible
and let the Confederates appeal to the King for
the rest. Ormond was, of course, kept in the
dark as to the secret treaty for the religious
articles by which the Confederates had been
persuaded that they would get all they wanted
from Charles, so that they were willing to
accept such instalment as Ormond would offer.

The Confederates accordingly once more sent
Commissioners to Dublin, and the discussion
with Ormond continued for another two months,
.bn 280.png
.pn +1
but Ormond refused absolutely to exceed his
instructions or to yield anything in matters of
religion. On November 20, a few days after
Rinuccini arrived there, Glamorgan went to Kilkenny.
He found the Supreme Council agreed
that if Ormond persisted in refusing the terms
they demanded as to religion, the political treaty
should be published by itself whilst the religious
articles should be kept secret until ratified by
Charles. They also promised that the 10,000
men should be sent without waiting for the
King’s ratification, but Glamorgan was to swear
not to employ them in the King’s service until
the religious articles were agreed to, and if
refused, he was to either compel his consent by
force of arms or bring the whole force back to
Ireland.

We are now able to take up in its proper order
the consideration of Rinuccini’s mission. In the
winter of 1644 the Confederates had sent their
Secretary Bellings to solicit help in money from
the Pope and other Catholic princes. He was
favourably received by the new Pontiff Innocent
X, and was greatly surprised at hearing that the
Pope would send a nuncio who would act directly
in his name and report to him concerning the
position of Irish parties. In the first instance
the Pope selected Luigi Omodei, but as he being
.bn 281.png
.pn +1
a Milanese was a Spanish subject, and his employment
might give offence to France, and as
the Pope wished to be perfectly impartial between
France and Spain, he selected Giovanni
Battista Rinuccini, Archbishop of Fermo, who,
as a subject of the Duke of Tuscany, could be
regarded as neutral. Bellings, in after years,
when his thoughts were perhaps embittered by
disappointment, said it was a job to please the
Duke of Tuscany. Rinuccini was born in 1592,
a member of a noble Florentine family, and at
the time we speak of was in his forty-third year.
His father was Camillo Rinuccini, and his mother
Virginia, daughter of Pier Antonio Bandini,
sister of Cardinal Ottavio Bandini. He was
educated first by the Jesuits in Rome and afterwards
went to the University of Bologna in his
eighteenth year. Then he studied law at Perugia,
and took his doctor’s degree at Pisa, and
distinguished himself so remarkably that he was
elected a member of the Cruscan Academy
though only in his twenty-first year. His first
appointments by the Roman Court were those of
Chamberlain to Gregory XV, and Secretary to
the Congregation of Rites. When Urban VIII
became Pope he continued his advancement, and
made him Civil Lieutenant to the Cardinal
Vicar, and soon after Archbishop of Fermo in
.bn 282.png
.pn +1
1625. At Fermo Rinuccini seems to have found
his most suitable sphere of work, for he proved
in all respects an excellent Archbishop, and was
so loved by the people and felt so true an interest
in them that he declined the metropolitan
See of Florence in his native Duchy in 1631.
In a religious sense he appears to have been an
eminently holy and good man, though perhaps
more than ordinarily imbued with the intolerant
opinions of the age he lived in. He had, moreover,
but small knowledge of the ways of men
who live wholly in the world, and was absolutely
ignorant of the feelings of people in political
matters who had always possessed representative
government of which he, as an Italian
brought up amongst the despotic courts of the
Peninsula, had no experience. The Pope, it
must be remembered, was then a great temporal
prince, and his government was as despotic in
practice as any in Europe. He, too, appears to
have shared the belief of Rinuccini, that it was
only necessary to gain over the Sovereign of a
country, and that no regard need be paid to its
other inhabitants, heedless of the fact that where
free institutions exist, a king who is disliked or
distrusted by his subjects soon ceases to have
any authority whatever. England was then
leading the way in that struggle for popular
.bn 283.png
.pn +1
liberty which was to continue in revolutions and
bloodshed until our own time; but on the Continent
at that epoch the great mass of any population
simply did not count in political matters.
To this ignorance and inexperience of Rinuccini’s
of the feelings of men like the Irish who
had lived under representative institutions however
limited, and were striving to regain and
extend them, must be attributed much of his
failure in dealing with Irishmen of various
parties. He was too autocratic in his methods,
and being a man of resolute and inflexible character,
determined to bend others to his will
utterly regardless that such a course might cause
him to lose many whom it was his interest to
conciliate. He had, moreover, an exaggerated
sense of his own dignity, and a fondness for
details of etiquette, dress, and ceremonial, which,
though to some extent natural to one brought
up in the most ceremonious court of a ceremonious
period, was carried by him to a point bordering
on the ridiculous. It must be said of him,
however, that though he had the ecclesiastical
patronage of Ireland in his hands for some years,
his appointments were made in the interest of
the Church, and no charge of favouritism can
be made against him. His object was the restoration
of the Church in Ireland “in its full
.bn 284.png
.pn +1
splendour,” and with this before him he did not
pause to consider local feelings or local experience
of the difficulties in his way in an age and
in circumstances when such an enterprise could
only be considered Quixotic. From these characteristics
it may be inferred how well fitted he
was to strike the final blows that broke up the
newly-formed union of the Irish nation.

For a hundred years the Catholic Church had
been conducting the counter-Reformation, and
had already recovered the allegiance of a great
part of Europe. To Innocent X it appeared
that the time was ripe for restoring his spiritual
authority in England. The Catholics there
were still a numerous and wealthy body and
comprised amongst their leaders many of the
most ancient and most highly placed of the
nobility, and would afford a solid foundation for
such a reconstruction. The difficult position in
which the King was placed seemed to render
him a peculiarly suitable object for overtures,
and if he could be restored chiefly by the aid
of the Catholics and the Pope it was hoped that
the Church might gain great advantages if not
complete re-establishment. We find in the secret
instructions given by Innocent to Rinuccini that
these expectations are clearly expressed, and
show, moreover, how badly informed the Pope
.bn 285.png
.pn +1
was as to the true state of feeling regarding the
Catholic Church in England. In the concluding
paragraph the Pope says: “In fine, this rebellion
in England has already caused so many divisions
in religion and so many disputes amongst
the Protestants themselves, that all who have
some belief in a future life are beginning to
waver, and would become Catholics if they were
not restrained by the fear of losing their property
and temporal comforts. If, then, by means
of this Catholic army, you can obtain from His
Majesty the revocation of the penal laws against
the Catholics, the abolition of the proposed Oath
of Fidelity and freedom in religion, that is that
the Catholics be able to hold all appointments
in the Kingdom and in Parliament like his other
subjects, we may hope in a few years for the
conversion of the whole Kingdom—a most important
step towards the eradication of heresy
from the whole North, and without which the
Irish can never hope to enjoy in peace the conditions
granted in favour of the true faith in
Ireland.”

The Catholic army here referred to was to
consist chiefly of the troops who had for the
past three years formed the subject of negotiation
between Charles and the Confederates. It
is well to bear in mind the Pope’s instructions
.bn 286.png
.pn +1
with regard to this army as showing that both in
his eyes and in Rinuccini’s, the Irish were to be
merely the convenient instruments of the greater
design. He says: “To ensure success in these
negotiations two points remain to be well considered;
first, that the requisite conditions be
well weighed so that the services we hope from
this Catholic army be efficacious; the second,
to facilitate by every means the agreement between
the King and the Irish.” The first of these
conditions may be reduced to the following
articles:—

.pm letter-start
“1. That the Irish army shall never agree to
land in England with less than ten or twelve
thousand effective men, that they may be able
to defend themselves without danger of being
cut to pieces by the English who serve under the
King.

“2. That two sea ports be placed in their
hands to disembark their troops in England, and
that those places be under the command of persons
in their confidence.

“3. That the generals of the army and all the
officers ... besides the governors of the said
places be appointed by the Irish.

“4, 5. The fourth and fifth articles are unimportant
and need not be quoted.

“6. That permission and authority from the
.bn 287.png
.pn +1
King be accorded to the English Catholics to
form themselves into a body of cavalry proportionate
in strength to join them when and where
appointed by the Irish general to serve in his
army and under his command....

“7. That the Catholic general of this cavalry
be a person whom the Irish can entirely trust,
and must, therefore, be first accepted by their
own general.”
.pm letter-end

That the political freedom of the Irish people,
the independence of their Parliament, the right
of Catholics to sit therein, in fact the political
articles which the Confederates had demanded
and which Charles was willing to concede were
altogether a secondary consideration in the eyes
of the Pope is evident from the following:—

.pm letter-start
“To facilitate the agreement between the
King and the Irish, that articles must be so
framed that nothing essential to the full establishment
of the Catholic religion in Ireland be
omitted; matters of less moment may be remitted,
in particular those tending to changes
in the Political Government, as they would,
without any doubt, retard the agreement.” This
passage illustrates the inexperience of the Pope
of the power of a people with free institutions,
and that he had yet to learn that a people politically
free may follow any religion they please.
.bn 288.png
.pn +1
It was scarcely likely that the Catholics, possessing,
as they inevitably would, a large majority
in the Irish Parliament, would long submit
to the disabilities under which they laboured in
religious matters.

As to any aspirations for the complete independence
of Ireland, the Pope promptly threw
cold water on them. In his letter of June 3,
1645, before Rinuccini left Paris, the Cardinal
Secretary writes: “Nor is he (the Pope) too
well pleased with the rumours which are spread
by some Irish Catholics, that they desire to
throw off their allegiance to the King because
he has not chosen to grant the concessions they
demand; and his Holiness would also desire
that they should speak with greater moderation
of the articles of peace. And, further, he wishes
them to understand that he desires to see them
continue obedient to the royal power, hoping,
however, that from the King himself and from
the protection of the Queen, they may gain all
they desire. To this end your Excellency’s persuasions
and warnings must be directed; His
Holiness rests securely on your prudence, whenever
you can convey news to him of the Irish,
whether it be of rebellion or refusal of submission
to the King, and that you will warn your
followers in this matter.”
.pm letter-end
.bn 289.png
.pn +1

It cannot, however, be doubted that the Pope
was entirely within his rights as head of the
Catholic Church in endeavouring to promote its
extension and well-being, and, however ill-chosen
the time and circumstances, that this was his
only object is plain from the following passage
in the same letter, as well as from his more
formal instructions: “Your Excellency is aware
that the intentions of His Holiness respecting
the affairs of Ireland do not go beyond the limits
of pure benefit to the Catholic religion, and that
your mission never had, and has no other aims
than to procure its free exercise, to restore
ecclesiastical discipline, and to reform the habits
of the Catholics relaxed by a long course of
free living. In all that touches on the civil
government your instructions have been so
framed as by no possibility to excite the jealousy
of either the King or Queen of England; nor
does the Holy Father work to any other purpose
in spirit, since he concerns himself solely in the
propagation of the Catholic religion without a
single thought of prejudicing the temporal power
of anyone whatsoever.”

Unfortunately for the good intentions of the
Pope, he was, by attempting to seize this imaginary
opportunity for an extension of his
spiritual authority, taking the most certain
.bn 290.png
.pn +1
course to further prejudice the already shaky
temporal dominion of Charles I.

Rinuccini left Rome towards the end of
March, 1645, and reached Genoa on April 15.
He was received with much honour by the Doge
and Senate, and writes to the Pope evidently
with great pleasure of the ceremonies that took
place and the honours paid to him. “I was
escorted from my house by a cortège of almost
all the nobility.... At the foot of the stairs
four Procurators met me, placed me in the midst
of them, and conducted me to the presence
chamber, where the Doge waited. He descended
four steps from the raised part of the
room ... and conducted me to the canopy on
his left hand, but to a seat a little lower than
his own.”

Having left Genoa he proceeded by Marseilles
and Avignon to Paris, where he arrived towards
the end of May, and was cordially received by
the Queen Regent, Anne of Austria, for whom
he had a Golden Rose sent by the Pope. This
Rose was the subject of much correspondence,
as there seems to have been some doubt as to
whether the Queen would receive it with sufficient
gratitude. He seems to have at once constituted
himself an extra Nuncio at Paris and
entered on a lengthy correspondence on French
.bn 291.png
.pn +1
and Spanish affairs without the knowledge of
the resident Nuncio. He has been accused by
Bellings and others of not wanting to go to
Ireland, and of intriguing to replace the Nuncio
then at Paris. Mazarin evidently suspected or
accused him of some such design, for we find
that though Rinuccini’s letter is missing, the
Private Secretary’s reply points out that “no
one can answer Cardinal Mazarin with greater
force than Your Excellency when he complains
that His Holiness sent you to France, not merely
on your way to Ireland, but that you should
adroitly contrive to establish yourself as Nuncio
in Paris,” and supplies him with the reasons to
be advanced in refutation of this charge. Some
grounds were doubtless given for Mazarin’s suspicions
through the Pope as he afterwards
explained having inadvertently omitted to give
Rinuccini letters for the Nuncio at Paris.

Rinuccini had also been favourably received
and encouraged by Gaston Duke of Orleans,
and by Condé, but nothing practical resulted
from the politeness of these princes. Mazarin,
from whom he hoped considerable help in money
and ships, was very cautious, and his influence
over the Queen Regent was very great. The
news of Naseby had completely damped any
ardour there may have been for the Irish cause
.bn 292.png
.pn +1
as a means of keeping England weak. Rinuccini
found that the Queen Henrietta Maria of England
would not receive him publicly as Nuncio,
because it was contrary to law in England, and
through fear of the harm it might do her husband
in the eyes of his Protestant subjects. He
is much concerned about this, and whether he
should go to a private audience and if there
uncover his head. The Pope taking a larger
and more sensible view of the matter tells him:—“However,
if the Queen either for fear of
injuring the King her husband, or for any private
reason, does not think it well to receive you at
a public or private audience, His Holiness does
not wish her Majesty to have any trouble about
the matter, since he will be satisfied with any
resolutions of a Queen so pious and so zealous
for the Catholic faith. I am, however, to add
that should your Excellency not be disposed to
accept private audience, that you may not put in
doubt the prerogative of the Nuncio to appear
covered before all queens (even if in France at
similar audiences a Nuncio does not appear
covered) still we do not see how any doubt can
rest on the prerogative whilst at all public audiences
the right to be covered is established.”

With Secretary Bellings the Nuncio was on
very friendly terms, but perhaps because he was
.bn 293.png
.pn +1
desirous to keep him with him so that he should
not reach Ireland first as he considered that
Bellings would put the interests of Charles I
before those of the Pope. Scarampi, the Papal
Legate in Ireland, writing at this time says that
if peace were concluded between the English
royalists and the Catholic Confederation without
Rinuccini’s consent, it would be fatal to the
Church’s interests.

Rinuccini prolonged his stay at Paris over
three months. He had some excuse for this
delay, since in his letter of 3rd July, 1645, the
Pope says:—“A fortnight ago your Excellency
was told if by chance the Queen of France
should give you any motive for remaining in that
country, Your Excellency might, under some
pretext, prolong your stay in that country; but
since His Holiness sees that this has not happened
... he has resolved that Your Excellency
shall proceed on your journey in the
manner first arranged.” However, this hint
was lost on Rinuccini, who was evidently in no
hurry to exchange Paris even for Kilkenny. It is
true he had, or at any rate made, many excuses
on the score of difficulty in finding shipping.
However, the Pope became impatient, and there
is a marked change of tone in the succeeding
letters. 14th August—“Let Your Excellency
.bn 294.png
.pn +1
go on your way rejoicing with the blessing of
the Holy Father upon you.” 21st—“Your
Excellency will hasten your going to Ireland;
every day’s delay may produce the worst effects.”
28th—“If you have not already done so, you
must set out.” 11th September—“We await
with much anxiety news of your Excellency’s
arrival in Ireland.” 18th September—“The
displeasure of His Holiness increases at your
Excellency’s delay in your departure for Ireland,
and he laments to see that all the negotiations,
missions and provisions which Your Excellency
has continued to introduce, tend still more to
retard it. He commands, therefore, that Your
Excellency with all promptitude, shall set out at
once for that island, that you do not delay in
any part of France in expectation of letters or
information from Spinola, whom you have sent
on before, much less wait until the frigates
which were to be provided by Invernizzi in
Flanders to accompany you shall be put in order....
The General Assembly, if they had known
of Your Excellency’s presence, would not
perhaps have dissolved without coming to some
conclusion, and God knows from what they have
lately done, if Your Excellency be not there,
whether they many not precipitately form some
revolution as little beneficial to the Catholic religion
.bn 295.png
.pn +1
as to its free exercise.” This seemed to
have its due effect, for the Pope’s next letter
found Rinuccini in Ireland. It is an important
document as setting forth the view that must
necessarily be taken by any person of sound
judgment of Charles’s negotiation through
Glamorgan. The Pope refers to a letter received
from the Legate in Ireland describing the
powers possessed by Glamorgan and the conclusion
of the secret treaty, and goes on to say,
“Father Scarampi having become aware of this
agreement, he remonstrated by letter not only
with the Bishops, but also with the Council ...
on the small foundation they had in any negotiations
with the Earl, whilst the mandates which
he had produced were subscribed by the King
and his secretary only, signed with the small seal,
and in consequence deprived of the necessary
authority, the King having no power in himself
to dispose of the political affairs of these kingdoms.
The whole foundation of the negotiation,
therefore, rested on the Earl, which being made
by another, could not bind the King if he did
not choose to be bound; moreover, being a convention
made with the Bishops, it would scandalise
the world to see that in the published
articles of peace no mention was made of the
Church, of ecclesiastical property, or of the
.bn 296.png
.pn +1
authority and jurisdiction of the Bishops, which
all remained at the mercy of the King, should he
not wish to make peace or observe it; and inasmuch
as the Catholic laity when satisfied with
the articles which had reference to themselves,
would not care to make a stand for others however
important, in which their own interest was
not involved, would have abandoned them.
Although these reasons appeared very strong to
the Council and the Bishops ... yet they had
remitted the whole affair to the Earl, had declared
themselves satisfied on their part with his
proposals on ecclesiastical matters, and consented
to the publication of the treaty of peace.... His
Holiness commands me to say that if
by letter from Father Scarampi or from others
to be relied on, you are convinced that the peace
between the Catholics of Ireland and the King
of England is established with the articles and
in the manner described, he will be content that
you do not prosecute your journey to Ireland,
and that you shall wait for further orders from
His Holiness; but if the intelligence your
Excellency receives does not convey the assurance
that the peace is certainly concluded, then
you will at once pursue your journey. But
should the peace be established with these same
articles and in the manner described, then His
.bn 297.png
.pn +1
Holiness desires that neither Your Excellency
nor Father Scarampi shall do anything to express
approval or disapproval, but remain, so to
say, entirely passive.”

It is a curious thing that notwithstanding the
Pope’s clear view of the powerlessness of
Charles’s position, he should have been willing
to treat with him at all.

Rinuccini writing from Limerick on October
25, gives an exciting account of his voyage. He
sailed from the island of St. Martin or Isle de
Ré, on Monday the 18th, and the wind being
favourable, expected to reach Waterford on
Thursday. On Thursday, however, there was a
fog, and owing to its being full moon, the sea
was so rough that it was thought better to keep
out to sea. In the grey of the morning on
Friday they saw a large vessel in full sail and a
small frigate giving them chase. These were
commanded by Plunket, an Irishman, who, having
joined the Parliament, had been ordered to
watch the approaches to Ireland. The Irishmen
with the Nuncio and Secretary Bellings in particular,
knowing the fate awaiting them if captured,
immediately armed, resolved to resist to
the last. The Nuncio was ill in bed, the sea
being no respecter of persons, “my illness
greatly aggravated, and already for two whole
.bn 298.png
.pn +1
days without any attendance whatever from my
servants, as they were prostrated by sea-sickness,
and as little able to hear as to obey any
order.” Nevertheless, he felt his courage rise to
a higher pitch than ever before, and prepared in
his own heart to give up life and liberty in whatever
way God should dispose of him, even if it
seemed to him necessary that he and those in his
care should be carried captives to London.
However, his fortitude was not put to this test,
for the chase ended at nightfall. He attributes
their escape to a miracle obtained for him by
St. Peter, whose image formed the figurehead of
the ship; but Father Meehan sententiously remarks,
“that he must have subsequently learned
that the escape of his pursuers was still more
wonderful, for Plunket’s cooking galley having
caught fire, and being alarmed for his magazine,
he was obliged to shorten sail and thus suffer the
San Pietro to escape.” The chase had driven
them a long way to the west and they had some
difficulty in making the land, but they succeeded
next day in reaching Kenmare Bay, where they
landed on the 21st of October, 1645. His first
lodging was in a shepherd’s hut, and he remained
there two days “not so much to repose after
our trial as to return thanks for our safety.”

Before leaving Paris he drew upon the Pope
.bn 299.png
.pn +1
for 15,000 dollars; Cardinal Antonio Barberius
gave him 10,000, and Mazarin 25,000, altogether
50,000. 20,000 were spent for arms and munitions,
and these were now landed. The rest of
the money was brought in specie. From Kenmare
he started for Limerick with an escort
furnished by the Supreme Council and the surrounding
gentry. “On his journey he was much
pleased at the fine appearance, hardihood, and
activity of the men and the beauty and modesty
of the women. He was amazed at the fecundity
of the latter. There were married couples,
he reported with astonishment, which were
blessed with no fewer than thirty children still
living, whilst he had been told families of fifteen
and twenty were quite common.” He was hospitably
received at Ardtully Castle by Donough
M’Carthy and his wife, a sister of Lord Muskerry
and niece of the Marquis of Ormond.
At Macroom Castle he was received by the Lady
Helena Butler, sister to Ormond and wife of
Muskerry, who was then in Dublin. These
names are mentioned to show incidentally the
close connection between Ormond and the
Anglo and Old Irish proprietors. At Dromsecane
he was met by Richard Butler, Ormond’s
brother, a member of the Supreme Council, at
the head of two troops of horse, thence by Clonmeen
.bn 300.png
.pn +1
and Kilmallock to Limerick. Limerick,
hitherto neutral, had been persuaded by Scarampi
to join the Confederation, and the Nuncio
was received with full honours by the clergy,
corporation, and the garrison. On November
12th he halted within three miles of Kilkenny,
and received a deputation of welcome from the
Council. Next day he entered his litter surrounded
by a vast concourse of people and set
out for the city. He left the litter on approaching
the gate, and donning the Pontifical hat and
cape mounted a richly caparisoned horse. A
canopy was held over him by leading citizens,
bare headed in spite of the rain which fell in
torrents. At the Market Cross, a beautiful
structure erected in 1400 and destroyed in 1771
during the oppression of the penal laws, he
halted, and listened to a Latin oration, and then
on to the cathedral of St. Canice, where he was
received by the Bishop of Ossory. Here from
the high altar he bestowed the Pontifical Benediction
and the <i>Te Deum</i> was intoned by all
present.

Having rested for two days he visited Lord
Mountgarret and the Supreme Council who then
occupied the ancient castle of the Ormonds.
“At the head of the hall was seated Lord
Mountgarret, President of the Council, who rose
.bn 301.png
.pn +1
as I approached, but received me without moving
at all from his place.” Rinuccini concludes his
complaint to the Pope by saying that the reception
was arranged by Bellings as one acquainted
with Italian etiquette. The Pope replied that
a hint should be conveyed to Mountgarret in
the shape of an account of the Nuncio’s reception
by the Doge of Genoa, who advanced four
steps to meet him. Possibly Mountgarret knew
it already, but thought the representative of the
Irish nation should not condescend so much as
the head of a small Italian Republic. The
Nuncio addressed the President and Council in
Latin, and assured them that the object of his
visit was to assist the King as well as procure
for the people of Ireland the free and public
exercise of their religion and the restoration of
the churches and church property. The Council
made a grateful acknowledgment in an address
to the Pope.

Muskerry and the other Confederate agents
were still in Dublin and did not return to Kilkenny
until the day after the Nuncio arrived.
They found that the old Irish had resolved to
rely entirely on the Nuncio, and the Pope, and
such other Catholic princes on the Continent as
might be induced to help them. The two parties
in the Confederation grew daily more estranged,
.bn 302.png
.pn +1
and henceforth were called “Ormondists” and
“Nuncioists.” Rinuccini had no trouble in persuading
the Old Irish to stand by him. They
believed that notwithstanding his protests, he
came to form a grand Pontifical army, and that
they could rely on the Pope and through him on
all Catholic princes for support and aid in
throwing off the yoke of England completely.
The Nuncio’s comparison of the intelligence of
the two parties is not very flattering to the Old
Irish. “Nature even,” he says, “seems to widen
the breach of difference of character and qualities,
the new party being for the most part of
low stature, quick-witted and of subtle understanding,
while the old are tall, simple-minded,
unrefined in their manner of living, generally
slow of comprehension, and quite unskilled in
negotiation.” And yet it was these simple-minded
men whom Rinuccini encouraged in
breaking up the Confederacy and in setting
aside those whom from his own account by their
greater knowledge of affairs, and especially of
England, were more likely to justly estimate
the chances for and against the success of the
Nuncio’s projects. Well has it been remarked
of Rinuccini that “With hazy notions as to the
meaning or strength of party divisions in Ireland,
he made little allowance for local conditions
.bn 303.png
.pn +1
in pursuing his aim of securing the full
predominance of the Roman Catholic religion.”

Glamorgan was courteously received by the
Nuncio, who, taking him and his credentials at
once at their proper value, distrusted him and
his power to induce the King to ratify the religious
articles. Glamorgan, on the contrary,
thought the Nuncio would throw no obstacles
in the way of either treaty, and wrote to the
Lord Lieutenant that the political treaty would
be signed in a day or two. “I am morally certain,”
he adds, “a total assent from the Nuncio
shall be declared to the propositions for peace,
and in the very way your Lordship prescribes.”

Rinuccini finding the Council on the point of
coming to terms with Ormond for the political
articles, while the religious ones were to be
reserved under the secret treaty for the King’s
acceptance, protested against the action of the
Council. He then set to work to gain control
of Glamorgan, who became as wax in his hands,
and promised on behalf of the King that even if
Ormond accepted the political treaty, it should
not be published until Charles had confirmed
his own secret treaty of August 25th, and that
he would demand their ratification as soon as
he landed with the Irish army in England.
Rinuccini further induced him to make what was
.bn 304.png
.pn +1
practically a second treaty, by which the King
was to bind himself to never again appoint a
Protestant Lord Lieutenant, that he would
admit the Catholic Bishops to sit in the Irish
House of Peers, pass an Act for a Catholic
University, and grant the Catholics the churches
and ecclesiastical revenues, not only those re-captured
by the Confederates before the date
on which Ormond’s treaty was signed, but all
those taken after that signature and up to the
confirmation of the religious articles by the
King. Glamorgan, eager to lead 10,000 Irishmen
to the help of the King, was ready to
promise anything, and as Chester, the only port
at which they could now be landed, was threatened
by the Parliamentarians, the Supreme
Council agreed to allow him take an advanced
guard of 3,000 men there at once. But Glamorgan
could not do so until he had Ormond’s
consent to his appointment as commander of
this force, and to the arrangement with Rinuccini
by which the political treaty was not to be
published until the religious articles, of which
Ormond knew nothing as yet, had been ratified.
To obtain Ormond’s consent Glamorgan set out
for Dublin on the 24th December. On the
26th he was summoned before Ormond and the
Privy Council on the demand of Lord Digby.
.bn 305.png
.pn +1
On October 17th the Catholic Archbishop of
Tuam had been killed at the siege of Sligo. On
his body was found a copy of Glamorgan’s
treaty, which was at once sent by the Scots to
London and was thence forwarded to Ormond.
Ormond at once saw that this revelation of the
King’s duplicity would be fatal to his cause with
the English people, and making a desperate
effort to save the credit of Charles, had Glamorgan
arrested on a charge of treason in
exceeding his instructions. Charles took Digby’s
advice and brazenly denied his instructions to
Glamorgan, and declared his “amazement that
any man’s folly and presumption should carry
him to such a degree of abusing our trust.” The
comedy was sustained by Glamorgan’s declaration
that he had made the concessions on his
own initiative through excess of zeal, and that
what he had done was in no way binding on the
King. Charles, moreover, disavowed Glamorgan
in a letter to the Parliament, “That the
Earl of Glamorgan having made offer unto him
to raise forces in the Kingdom of Ireland, and
to conduct them to England for his Majesty’s
service, had a commission to that purpose and
to that purpose only. That he had no commission
at all to treat of anything else without the
privity and directions of the Lord Lieutenant,
.bn 306.png
.pn +1
much less to capitulate anything concerning
religion or any propriety (<i>i.e.</i> property) belonging
either to church or laity.”

Of this disavowal Gardiner says, “It can be
no matter of surprise that Charles should have
acknowledged what he could not help acknowledging,
and should have sought to cast a discreet
veil over that which could not be concealed.
His really unpardonable fault was that after
engaging on such a negotiation with the Irish
Catholics he should now have announced his
‘resolution of leaving the managing of the
business of Ireland wholly to the Houses, and to
make no peace there but with their consent.’
What sort of peace the Houses would establish
in Ireland he knew full well. Rinuccini had
looked into his heart and estimated his motives
to more purpose than Glamorgan.”

Nevertheless, in spite of the perspicuity with
which Rinuccini had examined the stuffing of
this Stuart puppet he had urged the Supreme
Council to hold out for conditions which he
should have known very well Charles had no
more chance of being able to grant than if he
were an inhabitant of another planet.

The Confederates had demanded the release
of Glamorgan who had himself made strong representations
to Ormond that his imprisonment
.bn 307.png
.pn +1
was a great disservice to the King. He was
released on bail and returned to Kilkenny where
he pressed the Council to complete the political
treaty with Ormond on which all parties were
agreed, and to give him at once the 3,000 men
for the relief of Chester. On the 29th September
he wrote to Ormond that the Council was
only awaiting the meeting of the General
Assembly to be empowered to conclude the
peace, and that the men were ready to sail when
the treaty was signed.

It is difficult to believe that Rinuccini could
have had any real belief in the King’s powers
or those of anyone acting in his name; but
whatever the amount of his faith in the dwindling
royal authority, it had at last received a rude
shock, and he accordingly passed into an opposite
phase of distrust. He now thought that
Glamorgan by acting as agent between Ormond
and the Council had played him false, and that
his whole object had been merely to get the
Irish regiments into England, leaving the Irish
to content themselves with the political articles.
He endeavoured, therefore, to prevent any
agreement between Ormond and the Confederates,
the more so that he had received a copy of
the Pope’s treaty with the Queen, in which she
had agreed to much more than anything
.bn 308.png
.pn +1
Ormond or even Glamorgan would have conceded.
Sir Kenelm Digby had signed with the
Pope on behalf of the Queen a treaty by which
the entire liberty of Catholic worship and a
completely independent Parliament were to be
granted to Ireland. Dublin and other towns
garrisoned by the King’s troops were to be
handed over to Irish or English Catholics, while
the forces under Ormond were to join the Confederates
against the Scots and English Parliamentarians.
As regards England the King was
to concede everything required by the Pope’s
instructions to Rinuccini already quoted, and to
revoke all laws placing the Catholics in an inferior
position to the Protestants. This was to
be confirmed by the next Parliament, and meanwhile
the Supreme Council was to send into
England 12,000 infantry under an Irish commander,
and these were to be supported by
2,500 or 3,000 English Catholic cavalry. The
Pope was to send 100,000 crowns, about £36,000,
on ratification of the treaty by the King, a similar
amount on the landing of the Irish in England,
and the same payment annually for two years if
required.

Rinuccini therefore protested against any
treaty with Ormond until it should be known
whether the Queen’s treaty was accepted by the
.bn 309.png
.pn +1
King. “Preposterous as these terms were,” says
Gardiner, “Rinuccini was, from his point of view,
perfectly right in adopting them.” It is, however
for adopting such a point of view at all
that Rinuccini is to be blamed. How could he
possibly place reliance on the desperate promises
of a poor fugitive wife eager to save her husband
by any means when he had been unable
to trust her husband when his power was not so
reduced as it had since become! Glamorgan,
now completely in the hands of Rinuccini, wrote
to Ormond urging him to accept the Queen’s
treaty, and referring to the expenses he had in
equipping the troops which would come to
£100,000. He says “How cold shall I find
Catholics bent to this service if the Pope be
irritated I humbly submit to your Excellency’s
better judgment? And here I am constrained
... absolutely to profess not to be capable to
do the King that service which he expects at my
hands unless the Nuncio be civilly complied
with and carried along with us in our proceedings.”

This was an extraordinary letter to a man
who if anything was anti-Papal. Ormond replied
that he did not know what was meant by the
advantageous peace to be obtained of the King
by the Queen’s entreaties. “My lord,” he continued,
.bn 310.png
.pn +1
“my affections and interest are so tied
to his Majesty’s cause that it were madness in
me to disgust any man that hath power and
inclination to relieve him in the sad condition
he is in; and, therefore your lordship may
securely go on in the ways you have proposed to
yourself to serve the King without fear of interruption
from me, or so much as inquiring the
means you work by. My commission is to treat
with his Majesty’s Confederate Catholic subjects
here for a peace upon conditions of honour
and assistance to him and of advantage to
them; which accordingly, I shall pursue to the
best of my skill, but shall not venture upon any
new negotiation foreign to the powers I have
received.”

Glamorgan thereupon delivered himself up
entirely to the Nuncio and wrote a long Latin
oath by which he swore him unlimited obedience.
An agreement was drawn up between
the Nuncio and Glamorgan on the one
hand and the Council on the other, by which the
cessation with Ormond was to be extended to
May 1, 1646, the extension being for the purpose
of allowing the Nuncio to obtain the originals
of the Queen’s treaty, as the Council had
refused to support the new demands on the
King merely from the copy. Rinuccini agreed
.bn 311.png
.pn +1
that if he could not produce the original within
the time he would be contented with whatever
terms Glamorgan might get from Charles.

In view of this temporary agreement between
the Nuncio and the Supreme Council, it seemed
as if the troops could now start for Chester.
On February 24, 1646, Glamorgan wrote to
Ormond that not 3,000 but 6,000 men would
be sent, and that he was going to Waterford
to hasten the shipping. On March 8 bad
news arrived. Chester had surrendered to
Brereton and the port was closed against
Charles’s Irish army. Still more ominous things
happened at home, for a Parliamentary fleet had
sailed up the Shannon and seized Bunratty
Castle, thus showing that the Parliament felt
itself so sure of overcoming the King it was at
last in a position to commence active measures
in Ireland. The Supreme Council wrote to
Ormond that unless he would join forces with
them they would neither make peace at Dublin
nor send an army to England. Still they could
not abandon the negotiation with the Lieutenant
of a King who had not the power, and
probably not the will, to fulfil the engagements
made in his name. They now proposed to
Ormond that the conclusion of peace should be
postponed to the middle of June, so that Glamorgan
should get ships together to carry the
.bn 312.png
.pn +1
army to some port in Wales. In the meantime
Glamorgan would send his brother to get a confirmation
of his own treaty as to the religious
articles from the King. If these were accepted,
and if Ormond would agree to join forces with
them against the Scots and Puritans, the Council
would give him £3,000 for the pay of his troops.

On these terms Ormond signed on 28th March
the peace on the understanding that it was to
be kept secret until the 1st May. The articles
which related to the civil government included
some much-needed reforms, especially the admission
of Catholics and Protestants to office on
equal terms. Religious matters were postponed
pending Charles’s answer. The Confederates
agreed to send the 10,000 men, of whom 6,000
were to start on 1st April, and the remainder
on 1st May. Ormond gave them a written promise
that if the Confederates were attacked
before the latter date he would join them against
their assailants. It was too late. Like Chester,
South Wales had now been occupied by the
Parliament, Cornwall as well, and there was not
a foot of English ground on which the army
could land with any chance of maintaining
itself. Officers and men refused to leave Ireland.
Charles himself wrote that “the foot was to be
kept back, as it would be lost if it should now
.bn 313.png
.pn +1
attempt to land, we having no horse nor ports
in our power to secure them.”

In May Rinuccini went to Limerick to support
the Confederate army besieging Bunratty, and
took credit for having, as he says, “adroitly prevented”
the despatch of 10,000 Irish infantry to
Charles. It was not much to boast of, helping
the destruction of the man on whose continuance
of power both he and the Pope were relying
for the attainment of their religious aims. The
original cessation of arms, when the still united
Confederates could have made themselves
masters of the whole country and treated with
King or Parliament was a fatal error; but
having decided to back the King and prevent
the rise of the power that was destined to destroy
them both, they should have helped him
quickly. By insisting on conditions which would
only tend to make him more unpopular in England,
they had wasted valuable time and allowed
their intended ally to be weakened and their
common enemy to gain strength. The only
merit Rinuccini had was that his delays prevented
a useless waste of Irish lives; but it is
evident that was not in his thoughts when
pressing for the acceptance of the Queen’s
treaty, as had that been accepted he would have
consented, would have been bound by the Pope’s
.bn 314.png
.pn +1
instructions to consent to the despatch of the
troops. Charles, to do him justice, was the only
one to warn the Irish against starting on
account of the danger and uselessness of such a
proceeding.

It has been necessary to enter into such a
detailed account of these important negotiations
that space does not admit of more than a brief
reference to the chief events during the remainder
of Rinuccini’s mission.

He now set himself to work to annul the
lately concluded peace, and found a strong supporter
in Owen Roe O’Neill, who with his
followers persisted in the belief that the Pope
would help the Irish to shake off the yoke of
England. While we must sympathise with
O’Neill’s true-hearted and enthusiastic patriotism,
we must remember the Pope’s positive
instructions to Rinuccini on that point. Rinuccini,
moreover, warned O’Neill against nourishing
such hopes, and expressed his annoyance at
his calling his force the “Pontifical Army.” At
the same time the Nuncio was only too glad to
make use of O’Neill to overthrow the Confederation.
After Owen Roe’s brilliant victory over
the Scots at Benburb, on the 5th June, Rinuccini
supplied him with funds and accompanied him
to the siege of Bunratty, which surrendered in
.bn 315.png
.pn +1
July. Ormond’s peace was proclaimed in Dublin
on 30th July and at Kilkenny, but Rinuccini and
the majority of the clergy procured its rejection
at Limerick, Clonmel, Waterford, and other
places. The Nuncio held a convocation of some
of the clergy at Waterford, and on 12th August
declared that the Confederate Catholics supporting
the peace were perjured for having failed to
obtain for the Church first of all such terms as
they had sworn to obtain by their Oath of Confederation.
He also issued an interdict against
the places that had accepted it, ordered their
churches to be closed, and the sacraments refused
to the inhabitants. This exercise of his
powers cost him a severe snub from Rome. The
Cardinal Secretary wrote: “Moreover, having
seen a printed paper, in which the authors and
supporters of the peace between Ireland and the
Marquis of Ormond are pronounced to be perjurers
and a protest which the Ecclesiastical
Congregation has made in these precise [Latin]
words, ‘For these and other reasons moved only
by our conscience and having only God before
our eyes, that it may be known to all and singular
both in Ireland and abroad, we have not
given and should not give our consent to any
such peace unless according to our oath it contains
conditions for Religion, for King, and for
.bn 316.png
.pn +1
Country, etc., etc.’ And this paper is subscribed
first by your Excellency and then by the Archbishops,
Bishops, and ecclesiastics of Ireland.
It appears to His Holiness and to us that in
this your Excellency has departed from your
instructions, because it never was intended to
maintain the Irish as rebels against the King,
but simply to assist them in obtaining the assurance
of the free exercise of the Catholic religion
in Ireland.... From the specimen which I have
taken from this printed document, in which
occurs the Latin words I have quoted, your
Excellency will be able to regulate your conduct
on such other occasions as may present
themselves, and thus observe the tenor of your
instructions.”

All the same Rinuccini returned to Kilkenny
in triumph, imprisoned most of the Supreme
Council, and formed another entirely subservient
to him, of which he constituted himself the
President. He next excommunicated all adherents
of the peace, though eight of the
Bishops, including his own nominee De Burgo,
Archbishop of Tuam, and the Jesuits and Carmelites,
in fact all the regular clergy except the
Dominicans and Capuchins, held the censures
to be invalid, and appealed against them to
Rome.
.bn 317.png
.pn +1

A plot was now formed for the escape of
Charles from the Scots to Rinuccini and the
clerical party and the joint armies of O’Neill
and Preston, who were now reconciled by the
Nuncio, marched to besiege Dublin.

Rinuccini must now have not only a Supreme
Council but a Lord Lieutenant of his own.
Glamorgan when first he arrived had brought a
document sealed with the King’s private signet
appointing him Lord Lieutenant in the event
of Ormond’s death or misconduct, and Glamorgan
now qualified himself for the office of
Viceroy by swearing complete submission to the
Nuncio. He would do no act without his
approval, and would be ready to resign his
office at any time into Rinuccini’s hands. Rinuccini
thought the opportunity of installing him
would soon occur.

Ormond’s position was indeed now desperate.
The defences of Dublin were dilapidated, and
he had neither provisions nor ammunition. The
King had been surrendered to the Parliament by
the Scots, his cause was hopeless, and Parliamentary
cruisers swarmed on the Irish coasts.
Ormond accordingly, having been always in the
English interest, appealed to the Parliament for
help, and offered to surrender to them. Meanwhile
O’Neill and Preston quarrelled outright,
.bn 318.png
.pn +1
and on a false alarm that Parliamentary troops
had arrived, the siege was raised. O’Neill and
the Nuncio retired to Kilkenny, while Preston
remained and commenced still another negotiation
with Ormond. The Parliament had refused
Ormond’s conditions of surrender, and he
was now willing to make a treaty which should
unite the English Royalists with the moderate
Catholic party on the basis of toleration under
the King’s authority against Rinuccini on the
one hand, and the Puritans on the other. Rinuccini
threatened Preston with excommunication,
and Preston who had boasted of being “excommunication
proof,” hastened to Kilkenny.
Ormond then put an end to his anomalous
position by surrendering Dublin to the agents of
the Parliament on July 28, 1647, and joined
the other Royalist refugees in France.

Rinuccini’s supremacy in the Council did not
remain long undisputed. The moderate party
were crushed only temporarily. On the meeting
of the General Assembly the old Council were
released from prison, and the feud between the
two parties was more furious than ever, swords
being drawn in the council chamber. The Parliamentary
commander of Dublin, Michael Jones,
marched to the relief of Trim and defeated
Preston with a loss of five thousand men and
.bn 319.png
.pn +1
all his guns and baggage. In the South, Inchiquin,
at present for the Parliament, had taken
Cahir, and attacked Cashel, which he burnt,
shooting hundreds of the inhabitants and twenty
priests who had crowded into the cathedral,
and when attacked in his turn by the Munster
army under Lord Taaffe at Knockanos, the Confederate
forces were completely routed and their
camp and artillery captured.

And now the whole scene became still more
confusing, all parties seeming to change into
new and kaleidoscopic combinations. Inchiquin
who thought he had not been rewarded sufficiently
by the Parliament, and having after all
more sympathy with Irish than English proprietors,
made overtures to Preston. Ormond was
approached in Paris and a coalition was formed
against the Parliament between the moderate
Confederates and the Royalists. Rinuccini
issuing excommunication against all who countenanced
this arrangement, fled to O’Neill’s
camp at Maryborough. Preston and O’Neill
joined forces and there was civil war between
the Confederates. Jones, who suspected many
of his own troops of loyalty to Charles, was delighted
at this, and so bitter was the hatred
between the clerical party and the moderate
Catholics that O’Neill and the Nuncio actually
.bn 320.png
.pn +1
went so far as to treat with the Puritan commander
for help against their co-religionists at
Kilkenny. In October, Monnerie the French
agent thought Rinuccini about to fly from Ireland.
“Your Eminence,” he wrote to Mazarin,
“knows the Nuncio’s inclinations”—doubtless
his desire to be in Paris—“and I will merely say
that now he receives as many curses from the
people as he formerly did plaudits.” In September
Glamorgan, now Marquis of Worcester,
sailed from Galway to France, and the Nuncio’s
troubles were increased by the appearance in
October of O’Mahony’s <i>Apologetic Discussion</i> of
his conduct. The Nuncio had the book condemned
by the magistrates. He returned to
Kilkenny only to hear of the defeat at Knockanos.
Rinuccini found he had now but little
authority, “being now,” says Bellings, “better
known, and his excommunications by his often
thundering of them grown more cheap.” He
retired in disgust to Waterford in January, 1648.
Inchiquin took Carrick-on-Suir for the Parliament
in February, but declared for the King in
April, and endeavoured to come to terms with
the Confederates on the basis of the <i>Status quo
ante</i>, until Ormond should return. Rinuccini, and
in this case he was perfectly right, refused to
treat with such a blood-stained traitor to every
.bn 321.png
.pn +1
party, but the Supreme Council fearing the
growing strength of the English Parliament, in
spite of the Nuncio’s protests and threats, made
a truce with Inchiquin. Rinuccini at Kilkenny
and supported by a majority of the Bishops,
then excommunicated all who adhered to the
truce, and put the terms concerned under an
interdict. The Council appealed to Rome.
Rinuccini escaped by night from Kilkenny to
O’Neill’s army at Maryborough and thence to
Athlone and Galway, where he convened a
National Synod, while the clergy opposed to him
at Kilkenny declared his censures null and void.
The Jesuits, Barefooted or Discalced Carmelites
and cathedral clergy were opposed to him, while
he was supported by the Franciscans and Dominicans.
He bitterly complained of the conduct
of the Jesuits, and charged them and their
Provincial, Malone, with the greater share of
the blame for the loss of Ireland. He even went
so far as to declare the Irish people were Catholics
only in name. In his instruction to Father
Arcamoni, who was to represent him in the
appeal to Rome, he says, “It may be, therefore,
by the will of God that a people Catholic only
in name and so irreverent towards the Church
should feel the thunderbolt of the Holy See
and draw down upon themselves the anger
which is the meed of the scorner.”
.bn 322.png
.pn +1

Ormond landed at Cork on Michaelmas Day,
1648, and on the 16th of January, 1648-9 concluded
a peace with the Supreme Council, consolidating
the Royalist interests in Ireland.
The Council finally renounced Rinuccini at the
beginning of the negotiations, and ordered him
to “intermeddle not in any of the affairs of this
kingdom.” The Carmelites of Galway having
resisted the interdict by which their church was
closed, Rinuccini ordered their bell to be pulled
down. John De Burgo, a nominee of Rinuccini
to the Archbishopric of Tuam, supported the Carmelites,
and demanded the Nuncio’s warrant.
“<i>Ego non ostendam</i>,” said Rinuccini; “<i>Et ego
non obediam</i>,” retorted De Burgo. The Nuncio
was blockaded in Galway by the Catholics
Clanricarde acting with the new Royalist Confederation,
he being determined that no Synod
should be held in Galway in support of the
censures. Rinuccini, who had kept a frigate
ready, seeing how useless it was to remain longer
where he had worn out his welcome, sailed for
Havre on 23rd February, 1648-9. He did not
proceed to Rome until November. His agents
had been supporting his cause against Father
Rowe, Provincial of the Carmelites, on the part
of the Supreme Council. Rinuccini was received
with all the usual honours by the Pope; but
.bn 323.png
.pn +1
Innocent is said to have reproached him in
private with rash conduct. In March, 1650, the
Pope granted power to certain Bishops to absolve
those who had fallen under the Nuncio’s
censures, but a general absolution was refused,
as it would seem to make the Pope decide that
the censures were unjust. Rinuccini was
warmly welcomed on his return to Fermo, where
he died of apoplexy in 1653.

We have now followed as far as possible
within the limits allowed us the history of this
most distracting period, and before concluding
it may be well to glance back and survey its
most distinctive features.

We have seen how the rising of the dispossessed
clansmen in the North furnished a pretext
for the confiscation of practically the whole of
Ireland, irrespective of its share in the rebellion,
and how the Parliament was thus enabled to
raise money for an invasion to extinguish the
Irish nation and put the Subscribers in possession
of their security. The Parliament diverted
these funds to carrying on its own war against
the King. The Confiscation Acts united the
hitherto discordant Anglo-Irish and Old-Irish
elements in a great national movement for
common defence against further religious persecution
and further spoliation by a wealthy
.bn 324.png
.pn +1
and powerful neighbouring, but not neighbourly,
people. While they acted loyally together they
had extended their authority throughout the
greater part of the country, and were so near a
complete conquest that the English power was
brought so low that its representatives were
reluctantly compelled to sue for a cessation. A
section of the Anglo-Irish Confederates imagining
themselves still English, looking only
towards England, and never dreaming that a
day might come when they with the poet
Spenser’s grandsons would be forced to transplant
to Connaught as Irish Papists, urged the
granting of a truce, and though the Old Irish
protested against this throwing away of their
advantages, they respected the Oath of Confederation
too much to make any violent opposition.
By granting the truce, by negotiating
at all, the Confederates committed the fatal
error from which their future ruin followed. It
is all very well to blame Ormond, but he was
only doing his duty to his sovereign and his
party; the Irish had beaten him to his knees,
and their trusted representatives should have
kept him there until their position in Ireland at
any rate was secured. Had they, disdaining
Ormond’s overtures, relentlessly pursued the war
to an entirely successful issue—and that they
.bn 325.png
.pn +1
could have done so is evident from O’Neill’s
brilliant victory over Monroe at Benburb when
their strength was almost exhausted—they
would have been in a position to treat with King
or Parliament; and, moreover, that Continental
assistance they vainly sought when through the
Cessation their stability had become doubtful,
would not have been withheld. The Parliamentarians
in their struggle with the King showed
better judgment. When their early efforts for
an accommodation with him failed, they destroyed
him and came to terms with his son. The
Confederates should have avoided all treaties
until they were in a position to treat on their
own terms with either King or Parliament. On
the whole, it might have been better had they
been in a position to treat with the latter; but
whichever prevailed, Ireland, even without foreign
help, but with the prestige of an armed
and united nation like the Scots, would have
been able to enter into a confederation of the
three Kingdoms on honourable conditions, instead
of being dragged in, gagged and bound,
the victim of violence, fraud, and corruption unsurpassed
in the history of nations. The Confederates,
however, failed to take the tide of
victory when it served, and wasted their time in
a series of futile negotiations with a man who
.bn 326.png
.pn +1
certainly had not the power, even if he had the
will, to grant them what they haggled for.
There is nothing more sad in all Irish History
than to read that when Cromwell with a comparatively
small army had subjugated Ireland
in a few months, 40,000 Irish “swordsmen” took
service in foreign countries. They had missed
their chance.

Three things, says an Arab proverb, cannot
be recalled: “The sped arrow, The spoken word,
The lost opportunity.”
.bn 327.png
.pn +1
.sp 4
.pb
.sp 4
.h2
Bibliography
.sp 2
The following works have been freely availed
of in preparation of the foregoing paper:—

Gardiner: <I>Hist. Great Civil War</I>, 1642-1649.
London, 1893.

Prendergast: <I>The Cromwellian Settlement of
Ireland</I>. 2nd edition. Dublin, 1875.

Carte: <I>The Life of James, Duke of Ormond</I>.
Oxford, 1851.

<I>An Inquiry into the Share which King Charles I.
had in the transactions of the Earl of Glamorgan,
in which Mr. Carte’s imperfect account of that
affair and his use of the MS. Memoirs of the Pope’s
Nuncio Rinuccini are impartially considered</I>, 1747.
Brit. Museum, under Rinuccini.

Haverty: <I>Hist. Ireland</I>. Dublin, 1859.

Leland: <I>Hist. Ireland</I>. Dublin, 1814.

Walpole: <I>A Short Hist. Kingdom of Ireland</I>.
London, 1885.

Gilbert, Sir J. T.: <I>Contemporary Hist. Affairs
in Ireland</I>, 1641-1652. Dublin, Irish Archæological
Society, 1879.

Gilbert, Sir J. T.: <I>Hist. Irish Confederation</I>.
Dublin, 1882.
.bn 328.png
.pn +1

<I>The Aphorismal Discovery of Treasonable Faction.</I>
Ed. Gilbert.

Meehan: <I>The Confederation of Kilkenny</I>.
Dublin, 1882.

Aizzi: <I>Nunziatura in Irlanda di Monsignor
G. B. Rinuccini, negli anni 1645-1649</I>. Firenze,
1844.

Hutton: <I>The Embassy in Ireland, etc.</I> (Translation
of foregoing). Dublin, 1873.

<I>Dublin</I>: <sc>Browne & Nolan, Ltd.</sc>, <I>Printers</I>.
.sp 4
.pb
\_ // this gets the sp 4 recognized.
.sp 2
.dv class=tnbox // TN box start
.ul
.it Transcriber’s Notes:
.ul indent=1
.it Missing or obscured punctuation was corrected.
.it Unbalanced quotation marks were left as the author intended.
.it Typographical errors were silently corrected.
.it Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a\
predominant form was found in this book.
.if t
.it Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
.if-
.ul-
.ul-
.dv-      // TN box end