Page images

power to hinder their people from assisting them in any respect whatsoever.

The sincerity of this resolution appears, by their including in the same censure, “ all those unnatural patriots, and others of their own flock, that should adhere to these common enemies of God, king, and country; or should any ways help, assist, abet, or favour them, by bearing arms for, or with them; or by otherwise contributing to them, without urgent necessity.” So little foundation was there for the injurious reflection made by a late historian, “ that it having been proposed to these bishops, to issue their excommunication against those who were guilty of such compliances, they had reserved this engine of theirs for more factious purposes, and could not be prevailed upon to employ it in the king's fervice.

On the very next day, however, after this excommunication was published, these bishops issued an order for fufpending the effects of it in the Earl of Clanrickard's army, which consisted chiefly of catholics, the only persons that could be affected by it. Upon which irresolution of theirs, the Marquis of Ormond failed not to observe, “ that, fuppofing them to have proceeded on just grounds, yet their rashness was not excusable, as appears in that as they hastily denounced their excommunication on the 15th of September, fo it was more wisely suspended by the same men on the 16th following."

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]



Append. to Walsh's Hist, of the Remonft. f.

+ Lel. Hift. of Irel. s Carte's Orm.


[ocr errors]

с н А Р. XI. Ormond approved and advised the king's agreement

with the Scots. LORD Clarendon, Dr. Borlase,” Mr. Carte, and generally all our historians affirm, “ that when the Marquis of Ormond first heard of the king's declaration at Dumferling, he did really believe it a forgery," contrived either by the English rebels, or the Irish congregation, to seduce the people from their loyalty and affection to his majesty.”. However that might be, his lordship certainly knew long before that declaration was published (what was equally destructive to the Irish peace), that the king had agreed to take the covenant, and thereby engaged his folemn promise to endeavour the utter extirpation of these people's religion or persons. For so early as March 5th, 1648, we find, by a letter from himself, that “ he understood the kingdom of Scotland had invited his majesty thither to be crowned; but that he was to secure religion, according to the covenant, before he was to be admited to govern.” After which he says, “ if his majesty resolves to consent to that condition, in the most rigid construction of it to himself and his subjects, I doubt not but his immediate going thither is most counsellable.” But he, at the same time,' “ ques


[ocr errors]

· See Borl. Irish Rebel. f. 328.
2 Orm. Let. to Sec. Nicholas. Cart. Orig. Pap. v. ii. p. 361.
3 Ib.

a Dr. Leland more cautiously, and indeed, more truly says, « that Ormond affected to believe it a forgery; but that he foon received a private letter from the king, acknowledging that he had really subscribed the declaration, apologizing for this shameful transaction, as the effect of fear or force.” Hist, of Irel. vol.ii. p. 376.

Nay, in one of his letters on this occasion, he actually vindicates the king's conduct in this particular: “ I am much


tioned not, but it would be considered, how inconsistent the covenant was with the peace concluded with the Irish, by virtue of the power given him ; and that there would be care taken, to give that people no apprehension, that they would be broken with, which might drive them to take desperate ways for their safety.In November 1649, he declared, 4 “ that he was at no time against the treaty with Scotland ; and that much less was he then." In July 1650,5 " he believed it then appeared, that the treaty was ended, he hoped, in an agreement with the Scots, so that," , adds his lordship,“ in place of arguments to dispose his majesty to an accord so necessary, as without, or besides it, I see no near hope of his reftitution, I shall apply myself to the use to be made of such an accord in this kingdom" (Ireland). And then he proposes, " that himself may be fortified with some gracious declaration from his majesty, subsequent to the agreement of Scotland, in favour of all those (Irish) that had been, and still continued, loyal and affectionate to his service, and he conceived, that, without such a declaration and purpose as to those, his majesty could not


+ Orm. Let. to Sec. Nicholas. Cart. Orig. Pap. vol. ii. p.415. s Id. ib. p. 436.

Append. to Wallh’s Remonstrance.


Carte's Orig.

deceived,” says he, “ if it hath not passed for the most orthodox doctrine, with those I take to be the most orthodox men, that in lawful commands (and such certainly is the defence or recovery of their just rights), we are to yield active obedience to papist, nay pagan princes, if we be their subjects; and why not as well to a presbyterian king, I know not." Pap. vol. i. f. 430.

That active obedience ought to be paid to the lawful commands of popish, presbyterian, or even pagan princes, is not denied or controverted. The only question here is, whether either popish or protestant subjects are bound to pay fuch obedience to the unlawful commands of any prince, who had broken the public faith, folemnly plighted to them; and who had publicly vowed, in the manner before mentioned, the utter extirpation of their religion and persons ?

acquit himself with honour towards that people ; whereof,” adds he,“

many have perished, and more are likely to do so for their loyalty to the crown.”

[blocks in formation]

The real cause of the clergy's proceedings at James-town. At the same time that the king's declaration · at Dumferling was notified in form to the Irish congregation, the Marquis of Ormond proposed to make good the peace, upon certain conditions ; one of which was the revoking their excommunication. But that they refused to consent to, because, as they alleged among other reasons, “ they understood from his lordship's letter to them on that occasion, that he had suggested matter unto his majesty for making that declaration, by which, for ought appearing unto them, the king had withdrawn his commission from him, and had cast away the nation, as rebels, from his protecVOL. II.



[ocr errors]

The king's printed declaration was received by the Marquis of Ormond, on the 13th of October, 1650, and sent to the commissioners of trust on the 24th of the same month. Walsh's Hift. of the Remonft. App. f. 123.

b In their declaration, annexed to their excommunication, they allege, which is true, " that he had represented to his majesty, that some parts of the kingdom were disobedient, which absolutely deny any disobedience to have been then committed; and that thereby he had procured from his majesty, a letter to withdraw his own person and the royal authority, if such disobedi. ence was multiplied ; and so leave the people without the benefit of the peace.” Borl. Irish Rebel. f. 322. from Clarend.

The bishops at James-town alleged, as a reason for not revoking their excommunication, “ that they had perused the declaration which had been published in Scotland, disavowing the peace.” Id. ib. f. 331. “ These bishops urged the declaration in Scotland, as a ground and excuse for all their proceedings.” Id. ib. f.

332. * In the declaration at Dumferling, the king“ acknowledged his sorrow for making peace with the papists, and recalled


tion. Nor could they understand (they said) the mystery of preserving his majesty's authority with them, or over them, in such a case; or how it could be done.” They added,

They added, “ that they believed, the king's authority being thus taken from them, the best remedy for hindering the people to close with the parliament, was to return to their former confederacy, as it was intended by the nation, in case of the breach of the peace, on the part of his majesty.'

That the king's agreement with the Scots, and the shameful conditions of it, were early known to the Irish in general, is manifeft, not only from what has been already mentioned, but also from the following instance of the insincerity of his majesty's more recent promises to them. When his majesty first took the resolution of entering into a personal treaty with the Scotch commissioners at Breda, he wrote to the mar. quis of Ormond, January 23d, 1649,' “ to assure him, that though he would endeavour to oblige that nation (the Scots), by all just and honourable condefcensions, to engage themselves to enter England in the spring, with a considerable army, for his service; yet he would not, either in the said treaty, or upon any other occasion whatsoever, consent to any thing that should be contrary to the agreement made with the Roman catholics of Ireland ; but would fulfil and perform all grants and concessions, which he had either made or promised them, according to the full extent of that grace, he had always intended that nation; which, as he had new instances of their loyalty and affection to him, he should study rather to enlarge, than to diminish, or infringe, in the least degree.' He, at the same time, desired the Marquis “ to give


· Cart. Orm. vol. ii. fol. 129.

all the commissions granted by him in Ireland.” Cart. Orm. vol. ii, f. 131.

Hence the Earl of Clanrickard, in a letter to Lord Muskerry, confeffes, “ that the king, by that act (declaration) disavowed the peace with the Irish, and took away his protection from them.” Clanrick. Mem. Dub. ed.



« PreviousContinue »