in every part of the country; and its new commiffioned officers, under the denomination of rapparees, as committing fo many depredations and outrages on their protestant neighbours, that they could not be fafe in their houses." This confcious untruth, I fay, he was not ashamed to publish in the body of his book, though, in his appendix to it, he has inferted a letter of Lord Chief Juftice Keating, already cited, which teftifies, "that the thefts and robberies then committed, were done in many places, by the cottiers and idlers in the country, and often by King William's foldiers, though generally fathered on king James's army. And even Burnet has owned,' that "many of king William's army were fufpected of robbing in their turns, though the rapparees carried the blame of all." b وو 2 Even 2 See Append. 3 Hift. of his own Times, vol. ii. thard, in the county of Tipperary, afforded a melancholy inftance, the day before the battle of Aughrim; which the army being about to leave, swept clean off every thing, not sparing even the parfon's books and fermons; and the lofs that little town fuftained, was computed to amount to 2000l. in money, plate and goods. But (adds my author) their damage was foon after repaired by a contribution from the feveral regiments concerned." Harris's K. William, f. 324. Dr. King has exaggerated the number of robberies committed by the Irish foldiers to a ridiculous and incredible degree. He tells us that " in the year 1688, in the space of three or four months, hardly one protestant in Ireland had a cow or a sheep left; that the value of what cattle they were robbed of amounted to a million and half of money; that thefe fheep, cows, and bullocks so taken from them, would, if rightly managed, have furnished an army of an hundred thousand men for three years. And that the Irish (inftead of turning what they had thus gotten to any benefit of their own) took off the fkins of thefe cattle, and left their carcaffes to rot; at all which doings the government was not only not difpleased, but did plainly encourage them." State of the Proteftants, &c. p. 105. They (among the Irish) who received protections from king William's generals, and were yet plundered by his foldiers, ran with particular animofity to fwell the number of these ravagers." Lel. Hift. of Irel. vol. iii. p. 589. "The people ex claimed, Even king William's friends of higher rank, were greater robbers than these rapparees; as appears by the following refolution of the house of commons: "RESOLVED, 4 "That great quantities of forfeited goods, stock and corn, in this kingdom, were feized by feveral persons, by authority, or pretended authority, from the late Duke of Schomberg, for, and on their majefties account; which were, by the said perfons, converted to M 2 their + Com. Journ. vol. ii. f. 527. claimed, in the bitterness of grief, that the (English) army were worse than the rapparees." Ib. p. 590. The following paffage from Bishop Burnet, is applicable on this occafion: "The king's (William's) army in Ireland was almost as heavy on the country, as the rapparees were. There was a great arrear due to them; for which reason, when the king fettled a government in Ireland, of three lords justices, he did not put the army under the civil authority, but kept them in a military fubjection to their officers; for he faid, fince the army was not regularly paid, it would be impoffible to keep them from mutiny, if they were put under ftrict discipline, and punished accordingly. The under officers finding, that they were only answerable to their fuperior officers, took great liberties in their quarters; and inftead of protecting the country, they oppreffed it. The king had brought over an army of feven thousand Danes, but they were cruel friends, and though they were masters; nor were the English troops much better: but the pay, due for fome months, being now fent over, the orders were changed, and the army was made fubject to the civil government. Yet it was understood, that inftructions were sent to the lords juftices, to be cautious in the exercise of their authority over them; fo the country still fuffered much by these forces." Hift. of his own Times, vol. ii. f. 39. Even Harris confeffes, "that the disorders and robberies committed by king William's army, afforded matter for infinite complaints; that it was found by experience, that that army was almost as heavy on the country as the rapparees; that they took vaft liberties in their quarters, and instead of protecting the country, oppreffed it. And that, notwithstanding the orders of the lords juftices, extravagant outrages were daily committed by it." Life of king William, f. 295-6. In the return of the sub-commiffioners for feizing forfeited goods, their own private advantage, and never accounted for to their majesties." The accounts seriously given us of these Irish rapparees, by fome British writers, are really as ridiculous, as their treatment by the English foldiers was cruel and unjust. We are told, "that they carried the locks of their mufkets in their pockets, and hid them in dry holes of old walls; and that they laid their mufkets charged, and closely corked up at the muzzel and touch-hole, in ditches with which they were acquainted; that their retreat was fafe; for that they hid themselves in the unequal furfaces formed by boggrafs; or laid themselves all along in muddy water, with nothing but their mouths and noftrils above it." But Mr. Lefley's account of them, who had much better means of information, is both piteous and fhocking. He relates it as a well-known fact, "that thofe," who were then called rapparees, and executed as fuch, were for the most part, poor harmless country people; that they were daily killed, in vaft numbers, up and down the fields; or taken out of their beds, and shot immediately; which,” adds he, many of the protestants did loudly atteft; and many of the country gentlemen, as likewife feveral officers of king William's army, who had more bowels or justice than the reft, did abhor to fee what small evidence, or 66 even 5 Sir John Dalrymp. Mem. of Brit. and Irel. part i. p. 176. 6 Answer to King. goods, we find the following article: "Goods discovered to be taken away by fome of the army, 4350l. 10s." Com. Journ. vol. ii. f. 628. "Three days after (iffuing the proclamation) many of the Irish were plundered, who had ftayed (at home) on the king's (William's) declaration, and frequent complaints were made of it to the General (Douglas), without redrefs; and the practice was ftill continued. Notwithstanding which, feveral of the Irish applyed for protections, which were of little ufe to them when obtained, either for fecuring their properties or perfons; which violation, doubtlefs, caft a heavy blemish on the king's declaration, which they began to confider as a fnare to them." Har even prefumption, was thought fufficient to condemn men for rapparees; and what fport they made to hang up poor Irish people by dozens, almoft without pains to examine them; they hardly thought them human kind." In Dean Story's lift of perfons who died in this war, there are, "of rapparees killed by the army or militia, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight; of rapparees killed and hanged by the foldiers, without any ceremony, one hundred and twenty-two." 7 7 Sir John Dalrymp. ubi fupra. CHA P. ris's king William, fol. 282. "The Irish finding they could have but little benefit from their protections (from king William's officers), now began to turn rapparees; and often stripped and killed ftragglers from Douglas's party." Id. ib. f. 283. "Rapparees, upon being plundered contrary to the king's (William's) declaration, began to be very troublesome." Id. ib. f. 287. "The army (king William's) itself, as poffeffing more force, and as little humanity, were even worse than the rapparees; murder, anarchy and mifery were feen every where." Macpherfon's Hift. of Gr. Brit. vol. i. p. 616. "At Birr (169c), the army (king William's) labouring under a scarcity of bread, made that a pretence for stripping and robbing many of the Irifh, who had taken protections; which infamous practice enforced those people to go out upon their keeping, and turn rapparees; which raised numbers of enemies (to king William), who otherwise would have remained quiet." Harris's king William, f. 290. A confpiracy of the protestants of Dublin against the government. DR. King must have entertained a very mean opinion of his readers understanding, if he expected to be believed when he faid,'" that the government of Ireland, during Tyrconnel's administration, purpofed to ruin the trade of both proteftants and papists, in order to make king James absolute and defpotic; and that, for the fame end, it had formed a scheme, to hang up one half of the proteftants, and starve the other." These notions are fo perfectly burlesque, that they do not deserve a serious anfwer; and yet the doctor has fo gravely fet about proving the latter affertion, from the circumftance of difarming the proteftants of Dublin, on the 24th of February, 1688, and on the 20th of July, 1689, that, I hope, I fhall be excused for taking fome notice of it. As for the firft difarming," " this author himself knew (and probably at that time avowed), that the neceflity of it was very great and urgent; as Derry had before, on the 7th of December, 1688, shut its b gates • State of the Proteft. p. 71, 74. 2 Lefley's Anfw. p. 77. 86. He is guilty of still greater extravagance in faying, "that the proteftants could not but conclude, that king James was fo intent upon destroying them, that fo he compaffed that design, he cared not if he enflaved himself and the kingdoms." State of the Proteftants, p. 59. In another place he fays, "It muft be acknowledged, that king James not only ruined the proteftant trade, but went a great way in destroying the trade of the Roman catholics alfo." Ib. p. 74. b "By an order of the Irish commons, December 7th, 1695, the lord lieutenant was acquainted, that it was the unanimous opinion of that houfe, that the late rebellion in this kingdom could not be thought to have begun before the 10th of April 1689, being the time given by his majesty's (king William's) |