Page images
[ocr errors]

his lordship did not tell King James of it, and whether his majesty did not answer, that he was grieved for it, that he had sent immediate orders to discharge it, and that none but a barbarous Muscovite (for such, it seems, De Rosen was,) could have thought of so cruel a contrivance."

As this charge against De Rofen has been frequently introduced in anniversary sermons on rebellion, plots and massacres, 'tis but just to give the following extracts from the authentic papers of Mr. Macpherson, and leave the reader to judge of that general's conduct.

4 De Rosen's ORDER.

Camp before Londonderry, July 1st, 1689. “ The rebels of Londonderry augmenting every day in their obstinacy, which can no longer be endured, I have resolved to gather together all the rebels of this country, and to conduct them to camp, and afterwards to drive them under the walls of the town that they may starve. You are to give them no more subsistence than will be barely necessary to support them this length from the places they shall be taken. And as I have certain information that a considerable number of the rebels of Londonderry and of this district, especially their wives and children, have retired to Belfast and the neighbouring places; and as the hardiness of their hufbands deserves the severeft chastisements, I write this letter to acquaint you, that you are instantly to make an exact research in Belfast and its neighbourhood, after such subjects as are rebellious to the will of the king, whether men, women, boys or girls, without exception,

and Macphers. Orig. Pap. p. 203-4-5. d " At Derry the resistance of the rebels continuing, they made several fallies, killing many general officers and other officers, at length prefied with want of provisions, the garrison proposed a furrender on conditions (which they had lo often insidiously done before during the fiege, at one time to the king in person). This was construed by De Rofen into a mere feint to gain time (which is evident).' The belieged continued to fire and drove the Irish from two entrenchments, which they had taken the day before. The marefchal incensed at this unexpected resistarice, adopted the expedient above-mentioned.” Macphers. Hift. Gr. Brit. vol. i. f. 566, and Orig. Pap. paflim.


[ocr errors]

and whether they are protected or unprotected, and to arrest them and collect them together, that they may be conducted by a detachment to this camp, and driven under the walls of Londonderry, where they shall be allowed to starve in sight of the rebels within the town, unless they chuse to open their ports to them, which they shall be at liberty to do, if they are disposed to pity them. Do not fail to exert yourself to the utmost in executing these orders punctually, and without delay, and at the risk of being personally answerable to me for your diligence ; and you are to be particularly careful, that none of the rebels, whether men or boys, women or girls, or infants, of whatever age, shall pass the river and escape the way of Charlemont, to save themselves from the wretchedness to which they are to be reduced.

" You are to intimate to the inhabitants of Port Patrick the orders you have received, and to declare to them, that they shall assuredly be treated with the same rigour, unless they remain quiet. I recommend to you to give the greatest attention to the execution of these orders. I am, I am, &c.

DE ROSEN." De Rosen “had however, before his master's (the king's) orders could reach him, assembled above four thousand men, women and children, which he caused to be driven to the walls ; but so little effect had this proceeding towards persuading the town to surrender, that they fired upon them from the walls (“ happily none were killed"), which Monsieur De Rosen perceiving, drew them off and sent them to their homes again.” e

After €“ It appears from another letter of the same date (camp before Londonderry, 5th July, 1689) that he (De Rofen) had by that time received from the king an answer to his letter of June zoth, and his majesty's order, forbidding him to put his project in execution. He presumes to blame James for his clemency, and attempts to justify his own conduct.

“SIRE, “ I have received the letter which your majesty did me the honour write to me the 3d instant, by which I see that your majesty is always full of benevolence towards the rebels of this kingdom: their own conviction of this encourages them in infolence, to which they are carried every day, and in the hopes that



After all, the garrison of Londonderry was, it seems, resolved not to be behindhand in cruelty with De Rosen himself. “ For they erected gibbets, and had determined to hang fome Irish gentlemen, who were prisoners in the town, had not de Rosen's order been fo foon countermanded. And some add, that they even threatened to eat them after they were hanged;" which, from the extreme want of food, which they then la. boured under, seems not be very improbable.


s Har. K. William, f. 105. Note. your majesty will have compassion upon them in the distresses to which they may be reduced ; yet the troops are ruined, and the rebels will receive relief, which will oblige your majesty to abandon every thing. I imagined that I might have induced them to surrender, by threatening them as I have done, but that has produced no effect. It is true, I have not put my project in execution, and that perhaps is the reason why we are not yet further advanced; for I have presented before their gates but a small number of their accomplices, to try if that would make any impressions on them ; but they had the cruelty to fire upon them and to refuse them every kind of assistance, for which reafon I sent them back to their habitations, after having made them comprehend the difference between your majesty's clemency

and the cruel treatment of their own party.

“ You see, Sire, the condition your troops are in. I leave your majesty to judge, if an honest man, who has a high sense of honour, can continue to command them without great anxiety, when your enemies are particularly attentive to furnish your rebellious subjects with excellent arms. I doubt not but we shall see them march against us foon, with protections in their pockets and arms in their hands, which happened frequently already, and happens every day.”

De Rosen. “ The Marshal De Rofen appears to have been a diligent and active officer : but those who served under him were unacquainted with discipline; and either James himself was inattentive to the service, or his orders were never properly executed.” Macpherson's Orig. Pap. vol.i. p. 210.

Among these were “Lord Viscount Netterville, Sir Garret Aylmer, Major Rowcommen, and a great many others of lesser note, taken at the first engagement; and in the last, Captain Butler, fon to the Lord Mountgarret, one of the great M'Donalds, a captain, and Captain M'Donogh, and many others too long to name.” Walker's Lett. Macphers. vol. iii. p. 202. Note.

[blocks in formation]

The protestants of Ireland were not deprived of their

churches by King James, as Dr. King fets forth.


ING James, when in Ireland, was not actuated by that intemperate « zeal for 'the re-establishment of the catholic religion, which he had before, on some occasions discovered in England; probably because he had experienced the unhappy effects of it in the latter kingdom.' Even when he sent the Earl of Clarendon lord lieutenant of Ireland, one of his instructions to him was,' “ to consult the Archbishop of Canterbury in


· Clarend. State Lett. vol. i. p. 50.

a The true cause and motive of King James's endeavours to reestablish the Roman catholic religion in England, seems not fo much to have any bigotted attachment to that religion (as is commonly thought) as, “ his sufficiently knowing, that he could never be in entire safety, till the catholic religion was eitablish, ed in England, in such a manner as not to be ruined or destroyed.” These were his own words in a private conference with Barillon, the French embaffador. And whoever considers his recent and alarming remembrance of his father's murder, and of his brother's incessant troubles during his whole reign, which were both caused principally by those very men who were the greatest enemies of that religion, and who imprudently called themselves the only true proteftants; will abate somewhat of their wonder at these his endeavours to give some establishment to his Roman catholic subjects. See Sir John Dalrymp. Mem. vol. iii. p. 37.

• That King James entertained no malicious designs against protestants, merely as such, appears from the following passage. Is About the year 1687, the French protestants came in great numbers into England, to shelter themselves from the perfecution that raged in their own country. They were received with great tenderness by the people, and with great kindness by the king, who granted them briefs for their relief, and gave them considerable sums out of his privy purse, which was looked upon as an artifice by some, but highly commended by more impartial persons.” Continuation of Baker's Chronicle, f. 741.

all the religious affairs of that kingdom.” And Dr. King ? confefies, “ that when he was there in person, he turned out the popish mayor of Wexford, for not restoring a church of which the protestants of that city had been dispossessed; and that he expressed himself with more passion on that occafion than was usual to him.” This was a fact fo notoriously true, that the doctor was alhamed to deny or conccal it; but he was not ashamed to afirm and publish what was as notoriously untrue, viz, “ that in the diocese of Dublin alone, twenty-fix churches and chapels were by him taken from the protestants; and that his majesty could not, or rather would not, prevent the demolishing, defacing, or seizing of nine churches out of ten."

King James had published a proclamation, December 13th, 1689, against meddling with any of the protestant churches in Ireland, as a violation of the act of liberty of conscience. But“ his promises to protect the protestants of that kingdom,” says Dr. King, pretences; the popish priests having taken possession of most of the churches there, by his private permission.”


[ocr errors]

were meer

[ocr errors]


? Ubi supra.

3 State of the Protest. &c. p. 1.77.
4 Ib. p. 174.


King James was hardly ever noted for duplicity, of conduct ; this cannot be faid of his competitor for the crown. The Prince of Orange in a letter to the emperor, acquainting him with his intended expedition into England, says, “ I assure your imperial majesty, by this letter, that whatever reports may have been spread, and notwithstanding those which may be spread for the future, I have not the least intention to do any hurt to his Britannic majesty, or to those who have a right to pretend to the fucceflion of his kingdoms, and fill less to make an attempt upon the crown.” And a little after ;

And a little after; “I ought to intreat your imperial majesty to be affured, that, I will employ all my credit to provide, that the Roman catholics of that country may enjoy liberty of conscience, and be put out of fear of being persecuted on account of their religion.” Sir John Dalrymp. Mem. vol. jii, p. 170. See Append. Not only the emperor, but the pope himself, was cajoled by these deceitful aflurances.

And yet Dr. King, at the same time, confesses, « that the protestants, in their application to government for the recovery,


« PreviousContinue »