Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAP. XV.

The king confesses his obligation to make good the peace of the year 1648.

HIS majesty had, at several times acknowledged himself bound to fulfil his engagements to the Irish by the peace of 1648. We have already observed, that in a letter from Breda, in 1650, he desired the marquis of Crmond," to assure them, that he would perform all grants and concessions which he had either made or promised them by that peace; and which, as he had new instances of their loyalty and affection to him, he should study rather to enlarge, than diminish or infringe in the least degree."

In his speech to both houses of parliament, July 1660, when a general act of oblivion was intended to be passed, his majesty knowing that means had been used to exclude the Irish from the benefit of that act, told them, "that he hoped the Irish alone would not be left without the benefit of his mercy; that they had shewn much affection to him abroad; and that he expected the parliament would have a care of his honor, and of what he had promised them."And in his declaration of the 30th of November following (which was intended to be the ground-work of the acts of settlement), he again acknowledged this obligation, and said, "he must always remember the great affection a considerable part of the Irish nation expressed to him during the time of his being beyond the seas; when, with all chearfulness and obedience, they received and submitted to his orders, tho' attended with inconvenience enough to themselves; which demeanor of theirs," adds he, " cannot but be thought very worthy of our protection, justice, and favor."

But the commissioners from Ireland, fearing that if the Irish were included in the general pardon, they would be of course restored to their estates (of which, by the bounty of the Jate usurpers, these commissioners and their adherents, were then actually in possession),3 petitioned both houses, that they might be excluded by an express clause, to be inserted in the act. And upon a motion being made in the house of peers,

1 Cart. Coll, of Orm. Orig. Pap.
2 Irish Statutes.

Carte's Orm. vol. ii. fol. 129. 3 Carte, ubi supra.

that this petition should be rejected, and the Irish included in the general indemnity, the duke of Ormond opposed it, alledg ing that, "his majesty had reserved the cognizance of that matter to himself;"* though it was notorious, that his majesty in his speech to parliament, but a few days before had acquainted them," that he expected (in relation to his engage ment with that people) they would have a care of his honor, and of the promise he had made them." Excluded however they were, to the astonishment of all honest men; who now perceived, what powerful instruments their enemies made use of, to accomplish their wicked purposes,

CHAP. XVI.

Ormond's reasons for his opposition to the Irish considered. THE duke of Ormond assigned two reasons, in excuse for his ungenerous conduct in this particular. First he said,' “if he had not opposed the motion for including the Irish in the general pardon, others undoubtedly would; who, by exagge, rating their former misconduct, would have excited rather the

4 Sale and Settlement of Ireland.

1 Walsh's Letter to the Bishop of Ferns, p. 24.

What duplicity, when we reflect, that Ormond in his declaration, published on the conclusion of the peace of 1648, after having charged the English rebels with putting him under the necessity of concluding it, has these words:" this we mention not as thereby in the least degree to inva lidate any of the concessions made unto this people; but on the contrary, to render them in every point the more sacred and inviolable, by how much the necessity on his majesty's part for the granting thereof is greater, and the submission on their parts, to his majesty's authority, in such his great necessity, more opportune and seasonable."-Cart. Orm. vol. ii. f. 52.

I shall have frequent occasion to quote this tract Sale and Set. of Irel. It was commonly called the Conventry-letter, because it was dated from Coventry. It was written by Mr. Nangle, attorney-general in Ireland in 1685. The earl of Clarendon, when lord lieutenant of Ireland, often mentions it in his letters to England, as a piece much taken notice of, "I have received (says he, in one of them) a copy of a letter written by Mr. Nangle, to the carl of Tyrconnel, from Coventry; 'tis a notable letter." State Let. vol. i. p. 156.-Elsewhere, he says, I gave my lord chief justice Keating a copy of Mr, Nangle's letter, and desired his thoughts upon it." Ib.-His excellency mentions Mr. Nangle in several of his letters, a person of undoubted abilities, and integrity in his profession.

[ocr errors]

parliament's indignation against, than commisseration for their case." But this reason has no manner of force. For although the English had heard nothing of the insurrection in Ireland, but what gave them horror, and possessed them with the worst opinion of the whole Irish nation, yet his grace could have easily set them right, as to that matter: for, “besides,” as Mr. Carte confesses, "his being a witness of every man's behavior during the troubles, he was well acquainted with all the circumstances of their case; he knew what early attempts the most considerable of their nobility and gentry made to return to their duty; the difficulties they had to struggle with in that work; the perseverance with which they pursued their design till they had accomplished it; and the zeal with which, in the king's distress, they had embraced the peace of 1648." All this, I say, his grace could have easily made known to their lordships, in case of the supposed exaggeration of their misconduct, and would have been bound in honor and justice to do so; whereas, by his opposition to the motion for including them in the general pardon, he gave occasion to their lordships to consider them, as the most criminal of all his majesty's subjects in that respect, and as meriting peculiar and exemplary punishment.

His second reason was still weaker than the first, and is refuted by his own experience. He pretended, "that he did not think, that the protestant peers, or commons of Ireland, or even the very catholic Irish, would be concluded by, or content with an act of the English parliament," viz. An act granting their pardon, and thereby putting them in a capacity to be restored to their estates! His grace could not, seriously have meant, that either the protestant peers or commons, or the catholic Irish, would have deemed an act of the English parliament insufficient for the purpose of their restitution; because it was notorious that he himself was restored to his land in Ireland, by an act of the English parliament; and particularly, that ones Blackwell was dispossessed of his grace's large estate at Killcash, in virtue of it."*

2 Carte's Orm, vol. ii.
4 Cart. Orm. vol. ii. fol. 398.

3 Walsh, ubi supra.

5 Id. Ib. vol. ii. fol. 392.

"The parliament of England had restored the marquis of Ormond to his estate; in consequence of which several adventurers readily resigned

CHAP. XVII.

The earl of Orrery abuses the king's confidence, with respect to the settlement of Ireland.

HIS majesty's declaration before-mentioned, for the settlement of Ireland,* (which comprehended every foot of land in the kingdom) ordained, that about five hundred Irish gentlemen therein named, who had faithfully served him abroad, should be restored to their estates; but not until land of equal value was found,† to reprize the Cromwellian adventheir possession; but for the due execution of the act in all parts of Ireland, the king's letters were necessary."-Cart. Orm. vol. ii. fol. 218.

"There was an act of parliament passed (in England) with the consent of all parties, that he (Ormond) should be presently restored to all his estate (in Ireland), which was done with the more ease, because the greatest part of it (for his wife's land had been before assigned to her in Cromwell's time, or rather in his son Harry's) lay within that province (Munster), which Cromwell out of his husbandry, had reserved for himself, exempt from all title or pretence of adventurer, or soldier. What other part of his estate either the one or the other was possessed of, they very willingly yielded it up to the marquis, in hope of having recompence made them in other lands"-Clarend. Life, vol. ii. p. 197.

In order to enhance the merits, and consequently the rewards, of those said to be in the English interest, the first act of settlement sets forth in the preamble, "that the Irish rebels were conquered by his majesty's protestant subjects, in his absence." These Irish rebels, when they were conquered, fought under the command of the marquis of Ormond, his majesty's lord lieutenant of Ireland, and afterwards under the command of the lord marquis of Clanrickard, his majesty's lord deputy of that kingdom. And those protestant subjects who conquered them, were Cromwell, Ireton, Axtel, Hewetson, Jones, Broghill, Coote, &c. who, indeed, vigorously pursued these Irish rebels, because they constantly denied the authority of the pretended commonwealth, and unalterably adhered to the interests of Charles Stewart (as these his majesty's protestant subjects were, in that time of conquest, always wont to call him) ; it was in consequence of this act, which establishes it as a fundamental law, that the Irish rebels were conquered by the English protestant subjects, that commissioners were appointed by his majesty to decide the claims of the Irish, in pursuance thereof.”—Sale and settlement of Ireland.

The claim of the adventurers was founded on an English act of parliament 170 Caroli, by which all those who lent money towards carrying on the war against the Irish, should upon their being subdued have a certain portion of their forfeited estates conveyed to them. By the same act it was provided, that the money so lent should not be applied to any other

turers and soldiers, who then had possession of them. It also ordained, that such of the Irish as had never infringed the articles of the peace, concluded between the marquis of Ormond and them in 1648, should be restored upon the same condi tions. But the king had already disposed of so great a part of the kingdom in gifts to the English and Irish favorites (some of whom had been accessaries in his father's murder), that the order for reprisals was absolutely impracticable ;* on which account the adventurers and soldiers still continued their usurp, ed possession; "although many of them, in respect of their notorious and opprobrious actions against the crown, through. out their whole employment, and of their expressing even after his majesty's return, how little they were satisfied with the revolution, were universally odious, both in England and Ireland.??

The earl of Clarendon, who was thoroughly acquainted with the conduct and intrigues of this settlement, informs us, "that his majesty was led into this mistake by a very positive assurance from lord Orrery,t who was belieyed to understand

[blocks in formation]

use but that of the war. Yet, "scarce was there one hundred thousand pounds thus raised, when the same parliament, contrary to its own act and engagement, caused it to be laid out for the setting forth their army under the command of the earl of Essex, then ready for its march, against the king at Nottingham."-Bori, Hist. of the Irish Rebel.f. 121,

The soldiers, who were to be reprized with the lands of equal value, had constantly fought for the usurpers against the king, and were thus to be rewarded for that service. "They were, (says Mr. Carte) for the most part, anabaptists, independents, and levellers,"-Orm. vol. ii.

Although the king himself had confessed in his declaration, which was to be the foundation of these acts of settlement, "that the estates and possessions, which the adventurers and soldiers did then enjoy, if they were examined by the strict letter of the law, would prove very defective, and invalid, being no ways pursuant to those acts of parliament upon which they are pretended to be founded."-See that Declaration,

"If (says Ormond on this occasion) the adventurers and soldiers must be satisfied to the extent of what they supposed intended for them by the declaration; and if all that accepted and constantly adhered to the peace (of 1648) must be restored, as the same declaration seems also to intend, there must be new discoveries made of a new Ireland; for the old will never serve to satisfy these engagements."-Cart. Orm. vol. iii. f. 340.

"This earl (says king James in his memoirs) was famous for changing

« PreviousContinue »