« PreviousContinue »
с н A P. XVIII. The good faith of king William's, and king James's
officers compared. Dr. King was not ashamed to affirm,' “ that among all the articles into which K. James's officers entered, they never kept any to the protestants." Yet these protestants themselves “ spoke, at the same time, with commendation and honour, of Sarsfield's punctual observation of his articles, when he took Sligo, to omit other instances. General Ginckle owned to Major General Dorington, in the presence of the Prince of Wirtemberg, Monsieur Marquis de la Forest, and several other general officers, the good usage their prisoners had received at Limerick, and other Irish garrisons ; and most of the protestants that belonged to the north of Ireland, did then confess, that the Irish, while among them in the summer of 1689, kept their protections better to the protestants, than the protestant kept theirs to them. Even fome of the most zealous sticklers for king William's government have complained much, that the articles entered into with the Irish at Carrickfergus, by Marshal Schom, berg,' were not punctually observed. For when that VOL. II.
general State of the Protest. &c. p. 149. ? Lesley ubi fupra. * Id. ib.
• “ Schomberg,” says Macpherson,“ invested Carrickfergus; he summoned the garrison in vain; he opened four batteries against the place; he attacked it with the guns of the fileet; one thousand bombs were thrown into the town; the houses were laid in alhes. The garrison, having expended their powder to the last barrel, marched out, on the ninth day, with all the honours of war. But the foldiers broke the capitulation; they disarmed and stripped the inhabitants, without any regard to sex or quality; even women stark naked were whipt publicly between the lines.” Hist. of Gt. Brit. vol. i. p. 570.
The Journal of the most remarkable Transactions in this War, published at that juncture of time, thus relates this breach of articles at Carrickfergus, with respect to the inhabis tants : « The Irish in that town, when reduced to one barrel
general first landed, he issued proclamations of protection and encouragement to the Irish, who would return to their habitations, and follow their labour; which many accepted, and a great part of the country was thereby planted, some places in as full a manner as before the revolution ; but notwithstanding these protections, the protestant army fell upon them, and wasted their whole country, and when the Irish held out their protections, they tore them, and bid them wipe their a--e with them, and none were punished for this breach of protections."
Notwithstanding General Ginckle’s proclamation, printed at Dublin, February 4th, 1690, wherein he assured the papists in their majesties names, “ that all of them, who would submit to their majesties government, should be protected as to their religion, estates, and liberties; yet that did not hinder the multitude of out-lawries, and other forfeitures and proceedings against those papists, who submitted to the govern.
ment 4 Lesley's Answ. of powder only, made soldier-like terms; marching out with their arms, colours flying, ball in mouth, and other usual ceremonies in war; to be attended by a convoy, until they were within three miles of the Newry. Yet the articles, though signed by Schomberg himself, were nevertheless barbaroudly violated by the foldiers; who, without regard to age, or sex, or quality, disarmed and stripped the town's people, forcing even women to run the gauntlet stark naked.”
b'" By the report laid before the English house of commons, by Mr. Annesley, in 1700, it appeared that three thousand nine hundred and twenty-one persons had been out-lawed by king William since the 13th of February, 1689 [the report made by the commissioners says, 13th February, 1688]; that all the lands belonging to forfeited persons, amounted to more than one million and fixty thousand acres; that the most considerable grants were made to persons born in foreign countries, to Kepple, to Bentick, to Ginckle, and to Rouvigny: who had been all dignified with peerages, in one or other of the two kingdoms. That besides, a grant had passed the great feal to Elizabeth Villiers, now Countess of Orkney, a woman peculiarly favoured by William, of all the private estates of the late king James, containing ninety-five thousand acres, worth twenty-five thousand nine hundred and- ninty-five pounds a
ment on that assurance. As to their religion,” adds Mr. Lesley, “ they did not complain, for king William was very gracious to them in that respect; but as to their persons, estates and liberties, they cried out heavily of breach of public faith, and great oppres
Mr. Lefley had before attempted to prove that these forfeiting Irish were not guilty of rebellion, “ how could they," says he, “ who adhered to king James, be made rebels to king William, before they had submitted to him ? If you say he had a title to Ireland, by being king of England, because Ireland is an appendix to the crown of England; I answer, from the beginning it was not so; and the government of England being diffolved, as Dr. King says, by abdication,
and s Id. ib. year : And that, upon the whole, the value of Irish forfeitures amounted to three millions, three hundred and nineteen thoufand, nine hundred and forty-three pounds." Macphers. Hift. of Gt. Brit. vol. ii.
161-2. There were not three thousand protestants named in the act of attainder, paffed by king James in Ireland, 1689; and they were all quickly restored by king William : whereas the Roman catholics attainted by king William, loft all for ever, notwithstanding they were to be reinstated by the articles of Limerick. See King's State of the Proteft. p. 133.
The above 1,060,792 acres, were worth per ann. 2,11,6231. 6s. 3d. total value 2,685,1301. 55. 9d. (besides the several denominations in the said counties, to which no number of acres can be added, by reason of the imperfection of the surveys); “ which we humbly represent to your honours, as the grofs value of the lands forfeited in Ireland, since February 13th, 1688." Rep. Commiffioners ubi fupra.
«The impatience of William's English adherents only served to confirm the Irish in their aversion to the new government. And by a fhameful disregard, and almost perpetual violațion of his protections, granted to the peasantry, they forced this order also to croud to their old leaders, and to take arms for their security.” Lel. Hift. of Irel. vol. iii. P. 574.
The Irish “ saw their religion on the point of being utterly extinguished, and their remains of property ready to be seized by strangers; no security in submission, no reliances on any promises of pardon.” Lel. ubi fupra, p. 576. At Chapel-Izod, « William was employed in receiving petitions and redressing grievances, arising from the perpetual violations of his proteca tions.” Id. ib.
and returned back to the supposed original contract, or first right of mankind, to erect government for their own convenience, of consequence the tye which England had upon Ireland was diffolved, and Ireland left, as well as England, in its supposed original freedom, to choose what government and governors they pleased ; besides all this, Dr. King's principles freed them from king William ; because of the presumptions they had to think, that king intended to invade their property, lives, and religion.”
" The desertion (says Mr. Macpherson on this occafion) upon which the deprivation of James has been founded in England, had not existed in Ireland. The lord lieutenant had retained his allegiance. The government was uniformly continued under the name of the prince, from whom the servants of the crown had. derived their commissions. James himself had, for more than seventeen months, exercised the royal function in Ireland; he was certainly de facto, if not de jure, king. The rebellion of the Irish must therefore be founded on the supposition, that their allegiance is transferable by the parliament of England. A fpeculative opinion can scarce justify the punishment of a great majority of the people. The Irish ought to have been considered as enemies, rather than rebels.”
6. The kingdom of Ireland,” says the same author (Macpherson), “ ever since its reduction in 1691, exhibited one continued scene of oppreffion, injustice, and public mifery: The government of James, with all its disadvantages, his own bigotry, the insolence of the papists, combined with the fears of the protestants, were all more tolerable than the administration of William, ever since the surrender of Limerick. Co. ningsby and Porter," the lords justices, rendered them
felves . Hist. Gr. Brit. vol. i. p. 622. ? Id. vol. ï. p. 26.
An order of the lords justices Porter and Coningsby, to Samuel Booth, Esq; high sheriff of the county of Kilkenny, dated 19th November, 1691, sets forth, “ that they were extremely surprized at the frequent complaints they received from all parts of the kingdom, notwithstanding their proclamation to the contrary, of the ill treatment of the Irish, who were in
selves odious, by a series of fraud, cruelty and rapacity. They sold common justice for money ; they screened the guilty, and oppressed the innocent. To render their proceedings summary, to clothe their authority with more terror, and with most expedition to enrich themselves, they chose to exert their power in the military way. The corruption at the fource extended itself to every channel of government; the subordinate magistrates, the justices of peace, as if all law was at an end, made their own will and pleasure the rule of their conduct. Presuming on their power in the country, they deprived, under colour of their authority, many persons of their effects; they dispofsessed many of their lands. Coningsby, created a baron by the same name, with his colleague Porter, continued in the government till the arrival of Sydney, on the 25th of August, 1693 ; in the intermediate time, they presided in the court of claims for adjust. ing the demands of those comprehended in the articles of Limerick; and the obvious road to their justice, was said to lie through their avarice."
СНАР. arms against their majesties, and have either submitted, and are under their majesties protection, or are included in the articles granted upon the surrender of some of their garrisons, or submission of their army.
That this proceeding has so extremely terrified them with the apprehensions of the continuance of this sort of usage, that they found experimentally, some thousands who quitted the Irish army, and went home with a resolution not
go for France, are now come back again, and press earnestly to go thither, rather than stay here; where, contrary to the public faith, as well as against law and justice, they are robbed of their substance, and abused in their persons, &c.” From an attested MSS. Copy of that Order, communicated to me by Mr. James Laffan of Kilkenny.
• King William's army, in want of pay from the crown, raised money by military distress from the subject, to the incredible amount of two hundred thousand pounds. The stores left by king James in the kingdom, to the value, it was said, of eighty thousand pounds, were embezzled or applied to his own ule by Coningsby. The lord lieutenant himself, and Ginckle, who had been created Earl of Athlone, were accused of poffefsing themselves of almost all the forfeitures. But one of the most flagrant inroads upon the constitution, was depriving the