But leaving this frivolous apology to the contempt it deferves, let us now fee, if we cannot affign more probable causes of this partiality, from the conftant tenour of his grace's conduct, during the whole time of the preceding war, and for many years after his majesty's restoration.

CHA P. XXVII.

The probable motives of the Duke of Ormond's past and prefent conduct, with respect to the Irish.

ર

Two grants' were made to the Marquis of Or

mond by the king, foon after the breaking out of the war in 1641; one was the vesting in him all the fecurities and mortgages upon his estate, formerly made, and belonging to fuch perfons as were, or had been, in the infurrection. 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

K 2

1 Cart. Orm. vol. ii. f. 306.

ed

the city; and any fuch perfon or perfons as fhall be found to hide or conceal any of the faid excepted perfons, or be privy to their concealment or attempt of escape, and not discover to the best of their endeavour to prevent the fame, fhall be underftood to have forfeited the benefit of these articles to themselves." Borl. Irish Rebel. f. 359-60.

"Colonel Fennel," fays Lord Castlehaven," having cowardly or treacherously left the defence of the pafs 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 juftice, hanged him." Mem. p. 128.

a It is affirmed that he got as many gentlemen's eftates, upon the pretence of a grant of enjoying all lands that he could prove (by witneffes) to have paid him any chiefry, as were worth at least 150,000l." Unkind Defert. &c. p. 166.

ed to follow their lord, the head of that family, upon any occafion of hofting, 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 alfo what were the true motives of his backwardness to conclude the ceffation in 1643; and of his frequent difobedience to his majefty's urgent commands to haften the peace of 1646; of his carrying on, at the fame time, a private correfpondence and treaty with the Scotch covenanters in Ulfter, in oppofition 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 neceffary enlargement of time, for proving their innocence in the court of claims. From all this, I fay, it is manifest that his grace forefaw, that a different conduct in any

of

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 thofe forfeited lands, had, in August 1642, conveyed to him all the right, title and intereft 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, ftatutes, recognizances, mortgages, and other fecurities to Roman catholics, who had forfeited the fame to his majefty. And that all these were first, by a special grant, and afterwards by the act of fettlement, given to his grace as fully as the crown enjoyed the fame; but that his grace fent directions to pay the perfons who had advanced him the money on these fecurities, their full demand in fome cafes, and a juft and equal compofition 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 fubdue the rebels, would afterwards rafhly incur a forfeiture of it by promoting or abetting the rebellion ?

C 1642. See Cart. Orm. vol. iii.

of these conjunctures, would have precluded him from fome part of that vast emolument, which he expected from these grants, and which he knew, was in the end to be proportioned to the extent, duration, and heinoufnefs of the infurrection.

d

"And thus we find his noble friend, the Earl of Anglesey, acknowledging in print, in 1681,"" that it was then apparent, that his grace and his family, by the forfeiture and punishment of the Irish, were the greatest gainers of the kingdom, and had added to their inheritance vaft fcopes of land, and a revenue three times greater than what his paternal estate was before

2 Let. to the Earl of Caftlehaven. Caftlehav. Mem. 1st ed.

d When the Duke of Buckingham was endeavouring to fupplant Ormond in the king's favour, and made overtures to the Earl of Anglesey to join him for that purpose, the "earl rejected thefe overtures with indignation, and gave Ormond notice of the designs formed against him." Lel. Hift. of Irel. vol. iii. P.453. See Cart. Orm. vol. ii. fol. 482.

A knowing contemporary writer afferts," that the annual rents of Ormond's eftate before the war, were but seven thoufand pounds sterling (his antient estate being then encumbered with annuities and leafes, which otherwife was worth forty thousand pounds fterling per annum), and at prefent (1674) it is close upon eighty thoufand. Now the firft part of his new great revenues, is the king's grant of all thofe lands of his own eftate which were leafed or mortgaged; the reft were grants of other men's estates, and other gifts of his majefty." His gifts and grants are thought to amount to 630,000l. Unkind Deferter, p. 161-2. See Queries. ib. Appen. p. 168.

The pamphlet containing these queries, was published in England foon after the reftoration, but feems not to have been anfwered by any of the duke's friends either then or for fome years after. "If his grace (fays a contemporary author in 1676) or any one for him, can answer the faid queries, why is he or they fo long filent? they render his integrity fufpected, they wound his fame and honour. Certainly, if there were any way to answer them, and prove them falfe, Father Wallh would, long before now, have spoken it loudly to the world." Unkind Defert. &c. p. 172.

Nor was this filence of the Duke of Ormond and his friends the effect of contempt or disregard of the supposed calumny.

The

before the rebellion; and that most of his increase was out of their eftates who adhered to the peaces of 1646 and 1648, or ferved under his majesty's enfigns abroad." From whence his lordfhip juftly concluded, that "his grace could not have been very fincere, in making either of these peaces with the Irish; but that, whatever moved him thereto, whether compaffion, natural affection, or any thing else, he was in judgment and confcience against them; and fo," adds he," he has fince appeared, and hath advantage by their laying afide." f

It is, therefore, no wonder that his grace's noble brother-in-law, Lord Muskerry, when on his deathbed, declared to himself, "that the heaviest fear that poffeffed his foul, then going into eternity, was for his having confided so much in his grace, who had deceived them all, and ruined his poor country and countrymen." 3

3 Unkind Deferter, &c.

СНАР.

The printer of the pamphlet was profecuted and imprisoned, and two hundred copies feized in his houfe; and although his poverty and charge of children were very great, yet he would never confefs who fet him to work; fuch a confeffion would have procured him his liberty, but he seemed to flight it, being maintained very well in prifon, where he lay for a long time very contentedly, without making any application, or using any means to be bailed or discharged." Carte's Orm. vol. ii. fol. 385.

"My Lord Duke of Ormond," fays the Earl of Effex, lord lieutenant of Ireland in 1674-5, "has received above 300,000l. in this kingdom, befides all his great places and employments; and I am fure the loffes in his private eftate have not been equal to those I have fuffered (in the preceding civil war), and yet he is fo happy as no exception is taken to it." State Lett p. 213-14.

The Duke of Ormond befriends the Irish.

IN the year 1679, when fo much innocent blood

was fhed in England, by means of the perjuries of Titus Oates, and his flagitious affociates, encouraged and patronised by the Earl of Shaftsbury,' "the peace and quietnefs of Ireland was a great disappoint

Cart. Orm. vol. ii. fol. 494.

ment

a Such was the people's abhorrence of popery at this time in England, and fo light and excufable in their opinion did a person's being a proteftant, render any other vice that a person might be guilty of," that when Nell Gwin (Charles II.'s mistress) was infulted in her coach at Oxford by the mob, who mistook her for the Duchefs of Portsmouth (another miftrefs of that king's, but a papist), fhe looked out of the window, and faid with her ufual good humour, Pray good people be civil, I am the proteftant w---e. And this laconic fpeech drew upon her the bleffings of the populace, who fuffered her to proceed without further moleftation." Graing. Biograph. Hist. vol. iv. P, 189. note.

"The notorious Titus Oates (fays the Rev. Mr. Grainger) was soon after the acceffion of (king) James, convicted of perjury, upon the evidence of fixty reputable witneffes, of whom nine were proteftants. He was fentenced to pay a fine of two thousand marks, to be ftripped of his canonical habit, to be whipt twice in three days by the common hangman, and to ftand in the pilory at Westminster-hall gate, and at the Royal Exchange; he was moreover to be pillored five times every year, and to be imprisoned during life. The hangman performed his office, with uncommon rigour. The best thing James ever did was punishing Oates for his perjury; and the greatest thing Oates ever did, was fupporting himself under the most afflictive part of his punishment with the refolution and conftancy of a martyr. A penfion of four hundred pounds a year was conferred upon this mifcreant by king William. He was, for a clergyman, remarkably illiterate; it is well known. that he was the fon of an anabaptift; and he probably died in the communion in which he had been educated." Biographic. Hift. of Eng. vol. iv. p. 348.

"Titus