would give to the whole body of the adventurers and soldiers, and what an advantage would be taken, from the too general terms, in which the king's letter in his favour was couched, by the marquis, in applying to every other part of his conduct what was meant only in relation to the particular of his transactions in order to the assistance of Montrose, and by the fanatics, republicans, and other disaffected persons, in abusing it to countenance the vilest aspersions on the king's honour and his father's memory. His apprehensions in this respect he thus expresses in his letter of Aug. 3 to the earl of St. Alban's:

"Yours," says he, "of the 18th of the last, conveying her majesty's commands to me in favour of the lord of Antrim for the restoring him to his estate, I received not till after the king's letter directed to me and the council had been read, and the substance of a return resolved upon. I do not offer this as an excuse absolving me for want of performing, with due obedience, the queen's pleasure; which had been enough known to me before. But I shall in this case resort to her justice, believing with much confidence it was not her intention the marquis of Antrim should be preserved at the rate of destroying many less faulty persons and families, or that I should be instrumental in it, with such circumstances as must in consequence transfer his guilt upon myself, and not without some reflections upon the proceedings of the late king. If his restitution could, or can yet, be contrived without these hard conditions, I neither was nor will be opposite to it; and part of the severity of the case had been avoided, if the letter in his favour had not been directed to me and the council, but immediately to the commissioners, who were to execute it, if they found themselves in a capacity to do it. And that this, if any, was the right way, I freely and seasonably told my lady of Antrim, I think, before she brought me your letter. letter. I beseech you to assure the queen, that as all her commands are in that reverence and estimation with me which is due to them, so I have no private reluctance towards those that concern the marquis of Antrim, nor any the least remaining resentment against him; but that, if I had, I should, on the least knowledge of her will, lay them down at her feet, as I do, with

150

all humility, myself, and this which is offered for her satisfaction, 289 from your lordship's" &c.

This letter went regularly to London, and so did another which the duke of Ormond wrote to the lord chancellor on the 8th of that month, in which is this passage:

you to "For what concerns my lord of Antrim, I must refer our joint letter from the board, which expresses what we know and conceive of his case. But I find, by what you say, we had been in an ill one, if upon the literal positiveness of the king's directions, we had immediately transmitted them to the commissioners. I shall only add, that you are ill rewarded for penning the letter in favour of the marquis, (for so it is written out of England,) if he takes you not for his friend."

The chancellor on Aug. 15 acknowledges the receipt of this letter of the 8th, and adds,

"I see no joint letter from your board in the business of the marquis of Antrim. It is fit there should be one, to satisfy the king that he proceeded not upon good grounds. I never dissembled the penning of the letter; after I had stopped three or four positive commands, which were proposed in other draughts, and after I had for so many months hindered the doing any thing on his behalf; for which, I assure you, he and all his friends think me his enemy. The king's letter is an history: if it be true, and nothing can be added to it to make his pretences unreasonable, I know not how the conclusion can be denied; if otherwise, all falls to the ground. Therefore it is most necessary that the board there send a very I had much ado full answer. to keep it from being sent immediately to the commissioners; which hath been again pressed, but nothing more will be done, if any thing of weight be returned from you."

It is evident from hence that the joint letter of the council was secreted, sir H. Bennet probably being willing, in that way, to serve a person whose interests she so warmly espoused, to shew his complaisance to the queen mother, who had lately contributed so much to his advancement to the place he enjoyed, and supported him so strongly in his dispute with the chancellor; and perhaps imagining he was under higher obligations of gratitude

151

to her on that account, than he was of fidelity to the king, from the duty of a secretary of state, or the oath of a privy councillor.

Such were the means, by which the king's letter of Aug. 11 was obtained, and the sending of a supersedeas, to keep the judges of the court of claims from being influenced by it, was prevented. The marquis of Antrim's cause coming before them on the 20th of that month, his majesty's letter was first read in the court, and then sir N. Pluncket, counsel for the plaintiff, desired judgment upon that letter. Four of the commissioners declared their opinion in open court, that his majesty's pleasure signified by that letter was a sufficient ground for them to declare the innocency of the marquis, without inquiring into the testimony ready to be produced on the defendants' behalf; but the other three thinking it proper to hear what evidence could be offered for criminating the plaintiff, and afterwards to consider whether what they alleged was comprehended within the instructions and directions mentioned in the letter, the matter was argued by the council on both sides. e Pluncket supported his motion with several authorities in law, Coke's third Institutes, fol. 239, Henry Lee's 10 Jac., the archbishop of York's, the bishop of London's, and lord Aubigny's cases. Whitfield, Brown, and Reynolds, urged, in behalf of the defendants, the second Institutes, fol. 56, the statute of Edw. III, that the judges should for no letter of the king forbear judgment, and Hobart's Reports in the case of granting a consultation. They pleaded, that 290 the act of settlement confirmed the adventurers, unless the old proprietor should be declared innocent, and the commissioners were sworn to put that act faithfully in execution, and no others but themselves had the power of executing it; that the adventurers had a freehold cond R. R. 282. e Sir E. Dering's notes of this trial in MS. marked C. in the library at Surrenden Dering.

152

ditional, if the person was not innocent, by the qualifications of the act; that when an informer prosecutes tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso, the king cannot remit the suit; that in treason the king only is concerned, but in this suit there were other parties, and it ought to be treated as a cause between party and party; that in Aubigny's case the king's certificate was upon a point referred to himself; that in the case before the court, the judgment given by the king was only upon hearing the marquis, and not the other party; and that after all, the king absolved him only from any malice or rebellious purpose, which though it were supposed and granted to be the marquis's case, yet still he might not be innocent according to the act. The attorney general being present, thought it the duty of his place to support his majesty's testimony, and alleged, "that where the king doth certify matter of fact, no evidence ought to be received to the contrary; and that was the reason of the judgment in lord Aubigny's case, which was also between party and party." The council for the defendants thereupon moved, that this point of the king's letters might be referred to the lord lieutenant and council, as had been done before in Sarsfield's case." The commissioners being divided in their opinions, the question was put, whether the matter should be referred to the lord lieutenant and council, and carried in the negative. The next question, whether they should hear any evidence on the defendants' part, was carried in the affirmative.

66

The first thing which the defendants offered was a copy of the above-mentioned letter of July 31, from the lord lieutenant and council, in answer to his majesty's. This the attorney general opposed, and said, he moved in the lord lieutenant's behalf, that the secrets of the council should not be disclosed without his leave. Upon putting the question whether that letter should be read, it was carried in the negative. The bishop of Meath being

present, was called upon by the defendants to be sworn, but he refused it, saying, "he was told of all sides that it was very dangerous, and therefore he was not free to do it." Upon this it was desired, that the bishop's deposition formerly made might be read; but he being in court, this motion was rejected. The next thing attempted to be proved was, that Antrim knew of the plot for the surprise of Dublin castle on Oct. 23, 1641, but all the evidence was two hearsay depositions taken in 1642, from persons that were told so by the common soldiers of the Irish whilst they were prisoners. The conduct of his tenants in the north was objected, but the only thing of any consequence urged against him, before the cessation in 1643, was a conference he was accused to have with Roger More. Whether this was in order to get a pass to go to his estate in the north, or for some other lawful purpose, or whether it was absolutely false, does not appear from any witnesses on the marquis's side; for his council would examine none, choosing to rest their cause upon the king's testimony in his letter, rather than to lessen its weight by any act of their own in appealing to other evidence. The defendants, to prove the fact, produced another of the old hearsay depositions, taken just after the rebellion broke out, and six living witnesses, who all, speaking to one and the same fact, fixed it some in January, others in February, another in April, and one (viz. Connor Donnogh a Romish priest) in June 1642, at which time Antrim was prisoner in Carrickfergus, having been seized about the middle of May by Monroe, whom he had received and treated very splendidly in his castle in Dunluce. But as sir W. Parsons at that time vindi- 291 cated the marquis's innocency, as the duke of Ormond considered him as a faithful subject, when he waited upon him after the battle of Kilrush, two or three days before Antrim went into the north; as no indictment was laid, nor any prosecution carried on against him in a time of