« PreviousContinue »
that shall invade the fame, or attempt to deprive yourself, or your lawful heirs and successors, of any part thereof.' And to the end, this our sincere protestation may more clearly appear, we further declare, that it is not our doctrine that subjects may be discharged, absolved, or freed from the obligation of performing their duty of true obedience and allegiance to their prince ; much less may we allow of, or pass as tolerable, any doctrine that perniciously, and against the word of God, maintains, that any private subject may lawfully kill or murder the anointed of God, his prince; wherefore, pursuant to the deep apprehenfion we have of the abomination and sad consequences of its practice, we do engage ourselves to discover unto your majesty, or some of your ministers, any attempt of that kind, rebellion or conspiracy against your majesty's person, crown, or royal authority, that comes to our knowledge, whereby such horrid evils may be prevented. Finally, as we hold the premises to be agreeable to good conscience, so we religiously swear the due observance thereof to our útmost, and we will preach and teach the same to our respective flocks. In witness whereof we do hereunto subscribe the 15th day of June 1666.”
But the Duke of Ormond not only rejected the petition and remonstrance of this clergy, but also ordered them immediately to disperse ; and soon after banished them out of the kingdom ; infomuch that when his grace quitted the government, there were not more than three catholic bishops remaining there, two whereof were bed-rid, and the third had abfconded."
CH A P.
b His grace expected their subscriptions to that very remonstrance which had been presented to the king ; and would accept of no other. See Walsh's Remonft. f. 489. Although the non-subscribers alleged, and Walsh himself owns in several parts of his history, that his remonftrance feems to assert all that is contained in the oath of supremacy itself.
The Duke of Ormond's design in permitting this meeting
of the Irish clergy PETER TALBOT, titular Archbishop of Dublin, and one of the most powerful opponents of Walsh's remonstrance, observed afterwards to that religious, that he had been all along made use of only as a tool and a dupe, in that business. “ The ministry,” says he,' " for reasons best known to themselves, were willing to let you preach and press a formulary, which they forefaw would divide the catholics
among themselves, discredit their religion, and give the government the colour and advantage of excluding from their estates, many meriting gentlemen, for not professing that allegiance, which learned men of their own religion maintained to be absolutely necessary in a faithful subject.” That there were sufficient grounds for such an observation, can be now proved by unquestionable authority; for about the end of the year 1666, after the before-mentioned fynod of the Irish clergy had been dispersed, Lord Orrery, taking advantage of that incident, wrote thus to Ormond: “ I humbly offer to your grace, whether this may not be a fit season to make that schism, which you have been sowing among the popish clergy, publicly break out, so as to set them at open difference; as we may reap some practicable advantage thereby.” And when, fome years after, his grace's enemies had strangely accused him of having countenanced and encouraged popery in Ireland, during his administration; and instanced his permilfion of this fynodical meeting of the Irish clergy, as a proof of it; the duke himself frankly declared, “ that his aim in permitting that meeting, was to work a division among the Romish clergy; and that he be
Friar Disciplined, p. 92.
State Let. vol. ii. 3 Carte's Ormond, vol. ij. Append.
lieved he had compassed it, if he had not been removed; and if contrary councils and courses had not been taken and held, by his successors in the government; of whom,” says he, “ some were too indulgent to the whole body of papists, and others not much acquainted with any of them ; not considering the advantages of the division designed.”
Some hopes, it appears, had been given (which his grace's before-mentioned letter to Walsh seemed to confirm), that the subscribers to the first remonstrance would be restored to their estates.
But Archbishop Talbot calls upon Walsh, “ to name but one,“ who had been the better for his subscription. A man," says he, “ would think that my Lord of Iveagh's extraction, innocency, and merit, his breaking General Owen O’Nial's army, his raising and losing two or three regiments in the king's service, his venturing himself and his nearest relations in the towns besieged by Cromwell, his constantly following his majesty's person and fortune in exile, needed no further remonstrance of his loyalty ; but, however, that nothing might be objected against him, he signed yours; and yet is nothing the nearer his estate. I know you prefsed my Lord Duke of Ormond very much in Sir Robert Talbot's behalf, saying it would be a great scandal if the only gentleman in Ireland, who never would reject the peace of 1646, and suffered so much on that account, were not restored to his estate ; and yet you see he was, and his son is," in the same condition with the rest of
с нА Р.
4 Friar Discipl. p. 879
• In the year 1674, when Friar Disciplined was published.
The king confesses his obligation to make good the peace
of the year 1648.
His majesty had, at several times, acknowledged himself bound to fulfil his engagements to the Irish by the
peace of 1648. We have already observed, that in a letter from Breda, in 1650, he desired the Marquis of Ormond,' “ to assure them, that he would perform all grants and concessions which he had either made or promised them by that peace; and which, as he had new instances of their loyalty and affection to him, he should study rather to enlarge, than diminish or infringe in the least degree.”.
In his speech to both houses of parliament, July 1660, when a general act of oblivion was intended to be passed, his majesty knowing that means had been used to exclude the Irish from the benefit of that act, told them, “ that he hoped the Irish alone would not be left without the benefit of his mercy; that they had shewn much affection to him abroad; and that he expected the parliament would have a care of his honour, and of what he had promised them.” And in his declaration of the 30th of November following (which was intended to be the ground-work of the acts of settlement), he again acknowledged this obligation, and said, “ he must always remember the great affection a considerable part of the Irish nation expressed to him, during the time of his being beyond seas; when, with all chearfulness and obedience, they received and submitted to his orders, though attended with inconvenience enough to themselves, which demeanour of theirs,” adds he, “ cannot but be thought very worthy of our protection, justice, and favour.
· Cart. Coll. of Orm. Orig. Pap. Carte's Orm. vol. ii. f. 129.
2 Irish Statutes.
But the commissioners from Ireland, fearing that if the Irish were included in the general pardon, they would be of course restored to their estates (of which, by the bounty of the late usurpers, these commissioners and their adherents, were then actually in poffefsion),' petitioned both houses, that they might be excluded by an express clause, to be inserted in the act. And upon a motion being made in the house of peers, that this petition should be rejected, and the Irish included in the general indemnity, the Duke of Ormond opposed it, alleging that, “ his majesty had reserved the cognizance of that matter to himself ;" * though it was notorious, that his majesty in his speech to parliament, but a few days before, had acquainted them, " that he expected (in relation to his engagement with that people) they would have a care of his honour, and of the promise he had made them.” Excluded howeVOL. II.
· Carte, ubi fupra.
4 Sale and Settlement of Ireland.
• What duplicity, when we reflect, that Ormond in his declaration, published on the conclusion of the peace of 1648, after having charged the English rebels with putting him under the necessity of concluding it, has these words : “ this we mention not as thereby in the least degree to invalidate any of the conceffions made unto this people ; but on the contrary, to render them in every point the more sacred and inviolable, by how much the necessity on his majesty's part for the granting thereof is greater, and the fubmiflion on their parts, to his majesty's authority, in such his great necessity, more opportune and seasonable." Cart. Orm. vol. ii. f. 52.
I shall have frequent occasion to quote this tract (Sale and Set. of Irel.). It was commonly called the Conventry-letter, because it was dated from Coventry. It was written by Mr. Nangle, attorney general in Ireland in 1685. The Earl of Clarendon, when lord lieutenant of Ireland, often mentions it in his letters to England, as a piece much taken notice of. “ I have received (says he, in one of them) a copy of a letter written by Mr. Nangle, to the Earl of Tyrconnel, from Coventry; 'tis a notable letter." State Lett. vol. i. p. 156. Elsewhere, he says, “ I gave my Lord Chief Justice Keating a copy of Mr. Nangle's letter, and desired his thoughts upon it.” Ib. His excellency mentions Mr. Nangle in feveral of his letters, as “a person of undoubted abilities, and integrity in his profession.