Page images

Even king William's friends of higher rank, were greater robbers than these rapparees; as appears by the following resolution of the house of commons:

" ResoLVED,4 “ That great quantities of forfeited goods, stock and corn, in this kingdom, were seized by several persons, by authority, or pretended authority, from the late Duke of Schomberg, for, and on their majesties account ; which were, by the said persons, converted to M 2


4 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 passage from Bishop Burnet, is applicable on this occasion : « 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 settled a government in Ireland, of three lords justices, he did not put the army under the civil authority, but kept them in a military subjection to their officers; for he said, since the army was not regularly paid, it would be impossible to keep them from mutiny, if they were put under strict discipline, and punished accordingly. The under officers finding, that they were only answerable to their superior officers, took great liberties in their quarters ; and instead of protecting the country, they oppreffed it. The king had brought over an army of seven thousand Danes, but they were cruel friends, and though they were masters; nor were the English troops much better: but the pay, due for some months, being now sent over, the orders were changed, and the army was made subject to the civil government. Yet it was understood, that instructions were sent to the lords justices, to be cautious in the exercise of their authority over them ; so the country still suffered much by these forces.” Hift. of his own Times, vol. ii. f. 39.

Even Harris confesses, “ 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 vast liberties in their quarters, and instead of protecting the country, oppressed it. And that, notwithstanding the orders of the lords justices, extravagant outrages were daily committed by it.” Life of king William, f. 295-6. • In the return of the sub-commissioners for seizing forfeited


[ocr errors]

their own private advantage, and never accounted for to their majesties.'

The accounts feriously given us of these Irish rapparees, by some 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 muskets in their pockets, and hid them in dry holes of old walls ; and that they laid their muskets charged, and closely corked up at the muzzel and touch-hole, in ditches with which they were ac: quainted ; that their retreat was fafe; for that they hid themselves in the unequal surfaces formed by boggrass ; or laid themselves all along in muddy water, with nothing but their mouths and nostrils above it."

But Mr. Lesley's account of them, who had much better means of information, is both piteous and shocking. He relates it as a well-known fact, those, who were then called rapparees, and executed as such, were for the most part, poor harmless country people ; that they were daily killed, in vast numbers, up and down the fields ; or taken out of their beds, and shot immediately; which,” adds he, “ ny of the. protestants did loudly attest; and many of the country gentlemen, as likewise several officers of king William's army, who had more bowels or justice than the rest, did abhor to see what small evidence, or

66 that



s 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 some of the army, 4350l. 1os.” Com. Journ. vol. ii. f. 628.

& “ Three days after (issuing the proclamation) many of the Irish were plundered, who had stayed at home) on the king's (William’s) declaration, and frequent complaints, were made of it to the General (Douglas), without redress; and the practice was still continued. Notwithstanding which, several of the Irish apply. ed for protections, which were of little use to thein when obtained, either for securing their properties or persons, which violation, doubtless, cast a heavy blemish on the king's declara. tion, which they began to consider as a, snare to them.” Har


even presumption, was thought fufficient to condemn men for rapparees ; and what sport they made to hang up poor Irish people by dozens, almost without pains to examine them; they hardly thought them human kind.” In Dean Story's list of persons 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 soldiers, without any ceremony, one hundred and twenty-two.



? Sir John Dalrymp. ubi supra.

f. 287

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.

“ The army (king William’s) itself, as poffefsing more force, and as little humanity, were even worse than the rapparees ; murder, anarchy and misery were seen every where." Macpherson's Hist. of Gr. Brit. vol. i.


616. “ At Birr (1690), the army (king William's) labouring under a scarcity of bread, made that a pretence for stripping and robbing many of the Irish, 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.

[blocks in formation]

A conspiracy 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 said,' “ that the government of Ireland, during Tyrconnel's administration, purposed to ruin the trade of both protestants and papists, in order to make king James absolute and despotic; and that, for the same end, it had formed a scheme, to hang up one half of the protestants, and starve the other."

These notions are so perfectly burlesque, that they do not deserve a serious answer ; and yet the doctor has so gravely set about proving the latter affertion, from the circumstance of disarming the protestants of Dublin, on the 24th of February, 1688, and on the 20th of July, 1689, that, I hope, I shall be excused for taking some notice of it.

As for the first disarming, “ this author himself knew (and probably at that time avowed), that the necessity of it was very great and urgent; as Derry had before, on the 7th of December, 1688, shut its


! State of the Protest. p. 71, 74.

* Lesley's Answ. p. 77. 86.

• He is guilty of still greater extravagance in saying, “ that the protestants could not but conclude, that king James was so intent upon destroying them, that so he compafled that design, he cared not if he enslaved himself and the kingdoms.” State of the Protestants, p. 59. In another place he says, “ It must be acknowledged, that king James not only ruined the protestant trade, but went a great way in destroying the trade of the Roman catholics also." Ib. p. 74.

“ By an order of the Irish commons, December 7th, 1695, the lord lieutenant was acquainted, that it was the unanimous opinion of that house, 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



gates against the king's army; and as the Enniskillen , ers had marched, attacked and defeated a party of his majesty's forces. He knew, that the protestant gentlemen in Ulster had sent a deputation to the Prince of Orange, December the 8th, 1688 ; that they had received commissions from him (and they actually proclaimed him in the beginning of March following) that, by reason of a villainous forged letter, found in


William's) declaration to the Irish to lay down their arms. But that it should seem more reasonable to have its first beginning from the time Duke Schomberg landed with his army in the kingdom, August 13th following; that till Duke Schomberg's landing, the late king James's authority was submitted to, almost through the whole kingdom ; and that what was taken from the protestants, before that time, was disowned by the late king James, as may appear by several proclamations declaring, that whoever should plunder any protestant, should be answerable for the same, and undergo the penalties of the law." Com. Journ. vol. ii. f. 801. Not till August 13th, 1689, Duke Schomberg landed at Bangor in the north of Ireland, with about 10,000 men. Which then, of the two parties in arms so long before that time, ought to be deemed rebels ?

« The inhabitants of the town of Bandon, in February, 1688, disarmed the garrison of Bandon, and seized upon the town for king William's service.” Com. Journ. vol. ii. f. 876. For which service the Irish commons, in 1697, agreed, that

a sum of two thousand five hundred pounds should be levied for these inhabitants of Bandon, by the high constables, on the province of Munster.” Id. ib. f. 897.

c These Enniskilleners were merciless enemies. At the battle of Lisniskea, they “ defeated and pursued the Irish with great flaughter, granting quarters to none but officers. About two thousand feil by the weapons of an enemy, transported by zeal and resentment, above five hundred plunged into lake Earne, and but one of that multitude escaped.” Lel. Hift. of Irel. vol. iii. p. 534.

d December the 9th, 1688; “ which was a contrivance designed to engage the Earl of M-, who till then was deaf to all arguments for entering into the association in Ulster.” Lel. Answer, p. 79

The like villainous artifice was used to make king James's army desert him at the camp on Hounslow-heath. Colonel Langston, and other superior officers, affirming privately, with vollies of oaths, to the rest, “ that king James would turn out


« PreviousContinue »