« PreviousContinue »
Lord Orrery, from whom this account is mostly taken, has confessed a truth on this occasion, which he certainly never intended fhould be made public. In a private letter to the Duke of Ormond, he tells him, is that he had brought over Captain Taylor, one of the leaders in this latter conspiracy, to make confesfions to him; and that he had, as well as he could, laid open to him, the inexpressible mercy of his majes. ty to that vile party he had engaged himself with; not only in pardoning to them their paft crimes, but also giving them the lands of many who had served under his royal ensigns abroad, to pay the arrears which had been contracted against his fervice at home.” Such, in those days, were confessedly the rewards of loyalty, and the punishment of rebellion in Ireland!
The Duke of Ormond apologizes for the favour he had
Jhewn to the Cromwellian party in Ireland.
THE Duke of Ormond's strange partiality. in favour of the partizans of the late usurpers, to the ruin of so many thousands of his majesty's loyal, innocent, and meriting subjects, is thus more frangely accounted
7. State Let. vol. i. p. 226.
* A remarkable instance of this partiality we find in one of his grace's letters to John Walsh, Esq; one of his commissioners. “ You know," says he, “ what my instructions have been to my commissioners and servants : to give up, even whilst I might legally do otherwise, whatever I was poffeffed of, which was but set out to adventurers or foldiers, though they had not cleared their title in the court of claims.” Cart. Orm, vol. ii. Append. fol. 34.
This partiality will appear ftill more strange, when it is confidered, “ that his grace was the first of that family of the Butlers, that was educated a proteftant; that his mother Lady Thurles, his brothers, lifters, and all his relations continuing
for by himself. Having, in his speech to parliament on passing the first act of settlement, given a most odious and shocking description of these usurpers, as “ murderers of his majesty's father, and usurpers of his inheritance; whose endeavours were inceffant to destroy his person, and to blast his fame; who drove him into exile, and all the afflicting circumstances of that miserable state of a king.” He thought fit in a subsequent speech to the same parliament, on passing the explanatory act, to observe, “ that it might seem liable to some objection, that whilst he declaimed against the proceedings of these men, he yet undertook to see them ratified.” After which, he ludicrously, and as if he were sporting with the destruction of a whole people, adds, “ to this I shall only for the present say, that unjust persons may sometimes do justice; and for instance, I will assure you, that Ireton, at Limerick, caused some to be hanged that deserved it almost as well as himself.”
Thus, according to the Duke of Ormond's casuistry, Ireton's supposed merit in hanging up fome catholics at Limerick (obnoxious perhaps to his grace, though VOL. II.
* Borl. Hift. of the Irish Rebel.
Roman catholics, still remained in the Irish quarters during the lare insurrection; and such of them as were able to bear arms, as Lord Muskerry, Colonel Fitzpatrick, his brother-inlaw, his brother Colonel Butler of Kilcash, and Colonel George Mathews, and others his relations, as the Lord Mountgarret, Dunboyne, and divers other lords and gentlemen of his name and family, were generals or commanders of lower quality in the army of the confederates.” See Earl of Anglesea's Let. to the Earl of Castlehaven, p. 62.
• This regicide,“ with his own hand, wrote that precept which was sent out under the hands and feals of the others, on the 8th of January 1648, for proclaiming their court for trying his majesty, to be held in the painted chamber on the roth of the same month.” Trial of the Regicides, p. 10.
“ He was once determined to destroy all the inhabitants, men, women and children of a whole barony in Ireland.”. Morrice's Life of Orrery, p. 33.
otherwise good subjects), entitled that regicide's vile adherents to be legally invested with the estates and properties, of so many thousands of the innocent and loyal natives ; and that too in breach of articles, by which his grace had folemnly engaged to see these natives restored.
• The chief of those executed at Limerick by Ireton's order, were the titular Bishop of Emely, Major General Purcell, Sir Geoffry Baron, Sir Geoffry Gallway, and the mayor of that city. These Ireton caused to be put to death, in revenge for their noble perseverance in defending that city, though infected with the plague, for his majesty. “ Ireton had sent in articles of surrender, in which he insisted that about seventeen of the principal persons of the place, who were still for holding it out, should be excepted (from mercy). But these made so strong a party, that the treaty was broke up, without any agreement. But the town being afterwards surrendered (by the treachery of Colonel Fennel), the Bishop of Emely, Major General Purcell, &c. were taken in the Pest-house, where they were hid.” Ludlow's Memoirs, vol. i. p. 370, &c. Ireton himself, a few days after he had taken Limerick, caught the infection, and died of it there. Ludlow, from whom the above is cited, was one of the judges of that court-martial, which condemned these gentlemen. The very
words of the 2d article of the surrender of Lime.
« But whereas through the practice of some persons, more eminent and active than the rest, the generality of the people (of that city) were partly deluded and deceived, by keeping them in vain expectations of relief from one time to another , and partly overawed and enforced by their power to concur, and contribute thus long to the obstinate holding out of the place: therefore the persons hereafter named, which are Major General Hugo O'Neil the governor, Major General Purcell, Sir Geoffry Gallway, Lieutenant Colonel Lacy, Captain George Wolfe, Captain Lieutenant Sexton, the Bishop of Emely, John Quillan, a Dominican Friar, Capt. Laurence Welsh, a Priest, Francis Wolfe, a Franciscan Friar, Philip O'Dwyer, á priest, Alderman Dominick Fanning, Alderman Thomas Stretch, Alderman Jordan Roche, Edward Roche, burgess, Sir Richard Everard, Dr. Higgen, Maurice Baggot of Baggot'stown, and Jeffery Baron, being as aforesaid the principal appearing in such practices in this fiege and the holding out fo long, fhall be exempted from any benefit of this article or any article ensuing; and such of them as can be found within the garrison shall be rendered up at mercy, upon the surrender of
But leaving this frivolous apology to the contempt it deserves, let us now fee, if we cannot assign more probable causes of this partiality, from the constant tenour of his grace's conduct, during the whole time of the preceding war, and for many years after his majesty's restoration.
The probable motives of the Duke of Ormond's past and
present conduct, with respect to the Irish. Two grants' were made to the Marquis of Ormond by the king, soon after the breaking out of the war in 1641 ; one was the vesting in him all the securities and mortgages upon his estate, formerly made, and belonging to such persons as were, or had been, in the insurrection. The other, was that of the lands held under him, and forfeited to him for breach of conditions. This grant was confirmed by a clause in the first act of settlement, and the estates thus granted contained a prodigious quantity of land,” which had been granted to gentlemen upon fee-farm, or quitrents, and military tenures ; by which they were oblig
+ Cart. Orm. vol. ii. f. 306.
the city ; and any such person or persons as shall be found to hide or conceal any of the said excepted persons, or be privy to their concealment or attempt of escape, and not discover to the best of their endeavour to prevent the same, shall be understood to have forfeited the benefit of these articles to themselves." Borl. Irish Rebel. f. 359-60.
“ Colonel Fennel,” says Lord Castlehaven, “ having cowardly or treacherously left the defence of the pass at Killaloe, fled'into Limerick with all his party; where, upon the rendition of the town, which happened not long after, Ireton, with more than his ordinary justice, hanged him.” Mem. p. 128.
a It is affirmed that he got as many gentlemen's estates, upon the pretence of a grant of enjoying all lands that he could prove (by witnesses) to have paid him any chiefry, as were worth at least 150,000l.” Unkind Desert. &c. p. 166.
ed to follow their lord, the head of that family, upon any occasion of hosting, into the field; and upon failure thereof the lands were forfeited to their lord.” b
From his grace's early application for these grants, it is evident enough what use he intended to make of them; as also what were the true motives of his backwardness to conclude the cessation in 1643; and of his frequent disobedience to his majesty's urgent commands to haften the peace of 1646; of his carrying on, at the same time, a private correspondence and treaty with the Scotch covenanters in Ulster, in opposition to that peace ; and of his hindering the Irish to be included in the general act of indemnity, after the restoration, or to be indulged with the necessary enlargement of time, for proving their innocence in the court of claims. From all this, I say, it is manifest that his grace forefaw, that a different conduct in any
b “ Most of the Marquis of Ormond's vaffals and tenants, far from performing this condition of their tenure, had engaged in the rebellion and fought against him in the field. And king Charles I. to prevent any interfering of the claim of the crown and the rights of the lord, and any litigation of the Marquis of Ormond's right to those forfeited lands, had, in August 1642, conveyed to him all the right, title and interest which the crown had, or might have, in any of those lands. This was now confirmed by king Charles II. &c.” Cart. Orm, vol. ii. fol. 218.
The fame writer, however, tells us, “ that his grace had, in the time of the troubles, to raise money for the supply of the army
and service of the crown, entered into many judgments, statutes, recognizances, mortgages, and other securities to Roman catholics, who had forfeited the same to his majesty. And that all these were first, by a special grant, and afterwards by the act of settlement, given to his grace as fully as the crown enjoyed the fame; but that his grace sent directions to . pay the persons who had advanced him the money on these securities, their full demand in some cases, and a juit and equal composition in others.” Id. ib. fol. 309. But is it reasonable to believe, that thofe Roman catholics who had freely lent their money to his grace, with a view of enabling him to subdue the rebels, would afterwards rafhly incur a forfeiture of it by promoting or abetting the rebellion ?
1642. See Cart. Orm. vol. iii.