IRELANDS FIDELITY TO THE PARLIAMENT OF ENGLAND. IN ANSWER To a Paper, entitled, The Humble Petition of the Officers and Soldiers in the Fort of DUNCANNON.  
LONDON: Printed by Tho. Newcomb. 1660.   

IRELANDS Fidelity TO The PARLIAMENT of England.  
AS to despise Dominion, is the sin of these times, so to be false Accusers, is a sign of the latter times. Before the Petition itself be handled, t●●t is so full of guilt in both respects, it will be necessary to observe, That this Fort of Duncannon, with the Company that are the Subscribers, was formerly under the Command of Col: Simon Ridgley, a faithful Servant to this Parliament, who instead of raising, hath loured his fortunes by the Wars, out of whose hands it was taken by Lieut. Gen. Ludlow, and put into the hands of William Skinner, an Anabaptist; who being formerly laid aside, or at least( out of some pettish discontent) having laid himself aside( because the height of his employment was not suitable to his spirit) was now made Captain of the said Colonel Ridgleys Company, and Governor of the Fort; a place of no small strength and consequence to that Nation( and the poor old Gentleman put to shift for himself for some weeks.) As indeed it was the main design then driven on, to put all the strong holds of that Country into the hands of such men, that were either plunged, or of whimsical opinions,( as Dublin, Wickloe, Waxford, Duncannon, Waterford, Cork, Lymerick, Clonmel, Kilkenny, Carlow, Tredagh, trim, Athlone, gallovvay, Carickfergus, London-Derry) for that was the shibboleth, in those few moneths of Anarchy, by which those that they called Confiders were known. This Skinner, you shall find him listed amongst the common Soldiers, the better to keep him undistinguished to the Parliament, though( no doubt) to the Parliaments friends( where he is) he is better known then like to be trusted for the suture. But to come to the Petition itself.  
The great pretence by which they usher in their Abortive, for so I call it,( because born out of due time) after they had stood out to the utmost against those who afterwards in their Petition, they aclowledge with rejoicing, to have declared in that Nation for the Parliament, is, That with great grief of heart they had observed the sad acts of many, professing godliness, in disturbing the Parliaments hopeful beginning of settlement to these Nations; and that they mourned before the Lord for this apostasy. Answ. But who can believe this to be unfeigned? since it was the language of the great Apostates themselves, at this Parliaments restitution, though used like Joabs salute to Abner, or Judas his kiss before his Treason: For if there was such a spirit of mourning upon them, how durst they hold out that Fort, when the whole Army, to recover themselves from that dreadful apostasy( in which they were like to be involved) declared for the Parliament, as the Petitioners aclowledge? Or who can believe the ●enman of the Petition, that such a spirit of mourning should fall upon the private Soldiers of that Company, upon the grounds aforesaid; which yet was the onely Company in Ireland that stood it out so stiffly against the Parliaments Friends?  
But what have the Petitioners to say for this? a very good excuse, they pretend an impulse, That it was set upon their hearts, not to yield the garrison to any Authority, but such as should be purely derived from the Parliament. But in the mean time, no doubt they were lead to set up for themselves, to live upon the spoil and rapine of the country, and so to have proved a Den of thieves; and as good hopes, no doubt they had, never to see such a power in that Nation, considering with what face things did then look in England; might not the Fort of Air in Scotland( or any garrison under General monks Government, and consequently all the Forts of the Three Nations) have stood out upon the like Impulses and Reasons? And had not some places and persons declared against the Army-Usurpers, when had ever this Parliament been restored? What, can the Petitioners rejoice, as they tell you in their Petition they did, to hear that the Army in Ireland had declared; and yet will they refuse to declare with them? Let it be as a seasonable item to all concerned, what Impulse mongers they entrust in such places of concernment.  
But the Subscribers say, The reason of their non-conjunction with the Army was, because they had ground to think that what they declared, were but pretences, because the persons chiefly managing the work in Dublin, were such as had largely declared for a single Persons Interest; and men that a little before( the chief of them) had espoused the Armies Interest, by disclaiming the Parliament, and signing one Letter to General monk, and another to the Army in England: And because the Petitioners saw all Interests, even the most violent Cavaliers fall in with them at Dublin, yea such, who when the Parliament was restored, laid down their Commissions in discontent: And this was further confirmed by their violent actings against all the Parliaments real Friends, by disarming and imprisoning them, yea, such who had declared, charging them with the same things of which they were guilty themselves, as signing of Papers, &c.  
This part of the Petition looks like so many Articles of a Charge, I shall therefore briefly examine each particular, 1. They declared for the usurped Authority of the Protector. Answ. Did not the Subscribers do the like? did not all the Armies and Fleets of the Three Nations the like? And why might not the Petitioners by the same reason disclaim against General monk, in his present undertakings, because he had formerly served his country under that Authority? Are they not self condemners in that wherein they condemn others. It was an honest and true saying of Lieut General Ludlow at a meeting of Officers in Dublin; That of all parties, he knew none more guilty, or more to be blamed for that defection, then the Anabaptists.  
2. But the chief persons managing the work at Dublin, had espoused the Armies Interest, by sending one Letter to General Monk, and another to the Army in England. Answ. The meaning of this is better understood then expressed; it is true, there was a Letter written by Jones to General monk, to disown his hostile actions against their Friends of the Army in England; which Letter being before prepared, was like to have proved a Trepan to several innocent Officers, who knew nothing of it, till they met to subscribe; nor was there above nine in all, of which number, two protested against it, and withdrew ▪ and yet they had the confidence to subscribe this Letter, as from a Council of Officers at Dublin( neminè contradicente.) So that of the remaining Subscribers, there is onely one that is now engaged eminently in Dublin; and no doubt he had this in his eye, as the effect manifesteth, not to incapacitate himself from laying hold on the first opportunity to appear for the Parliament, which accordingly he did, and thereby threw off that burden which he had long been under, as almost insupportable.  
3. But the vilest of the Cavaliers fell in with them. Answ. Either the Subscribers mean that the Cavaliers joined with the Army in declaring for the Parliament, or that they were well pleased at what the Army did, or else the persons so highly concerned, received Cavaliers into the Army. If either of the former, it wounds not the Reputation of the Army; if the latter be meant, as indeed it must be, if it be considered what strange reports have been bruited abroad, and that occasioned by several misrepresentations in Letters directed to this Parliament from Lieut. General Ludlow and Mr. Corbet, then hath this parcel of Petitioners subscribed an untruth: And therefore in the behalf of that Faithful Army I assert, That not one Cavalier( upon the strictest enquiry) could I ever hear, hath been inlisted, more then those that were in it in the strictest time of that Armies Discipline, under Ireton and Fleetwood: And to disprove this, I make a challenge to the Subscribers, and all their Confederates, who think themselves concerned, to bring but one example to the contrary; if they cannot, then let the Frowns of an English Parliament strike terror in the false accusers of their Brethren.  
4. But many of these that now appear for the Parliament, laid down their Commissions in discontent at their Restitution. Answ. This is also an untruth, For the true ground and reason of those few that did so lay down, of which Lieutenant Colonel Scot was one, was because they would not serve under an Anabaptistical and fanatic Faction, which then ruled and domineered both in Camp and garrison.  
5. But the Petitioners say, That the Army violated their Declaration, by imprisoning of Friends, and turning out many that were faithful, laying to their charge no more then what the chiefest of themselves were guilty of. Answ. It may be in such a hurry of business some few might suffer who did not deserve it; but yet the sufferings of such were occasioned by misrepresentations from the country: But in this, such sufferers are not left without remedy; for public Declaration hath been made, That all persons who think themselves injured, should be heard; and to that end Court-Marshals are settled in all parts of the Nation, in which none are to sit as Judges that are concerned. A remedy, that though desired and often moved for in the return of the black List, brought over by Lieut. General Ludlow, yet could never be obtained. For how many Faithful Friends to this Parliament, yea scores of them were outed for they knew not what; by reason whereof, the fairer opportunity was given to their apostasy: But the Petition saith, Some of the chief of the Army now declaring, were guilty of the signing Papers for the Army in England. Answ. This also is a Charge forged in the same shop of untruths; for could they have mentioned one, no doubt he had been name, if it had served for their advantage. In the next Clause the Petitioners do confess, That they did rejoice that they had an opportunity to declare for the Parliament. Answ. But if so, who gave them that opportunity? was it not their Friends in Dublin? yea, the whole Army, and why then did they not make use of their opportunity, in near three weeks time? They say, They could not decline him that was commissioned by the Parliament, who had in the worst of times born his faithful Testimony for the privileges of Parliament. Answ. It is well they can cover their offences( to speak gently of it) with the cloak of his former Fidelity( meaning Lieut. General Ludlows.) But this will not serve them as a sufficient excuse, for his coming to that place was onely accidental; and it seems, if he had never came, they would never have joined with the Army in their undertakings, though they declared, as themselves before confessed, for the Parliament. But by this they would also insinuate, That they in Dublin had cast off the Parliaments Authority, by not owning him that had their Commission. Answ. The Petitioners do not consider that a Commission may be forfeited through the breach of trust: I will not say his is, but a little time will clear it. The Petitioners say, That if they had submitted to the conduct of those in Dublin, they had been ensnared. Answ. Very well said, Is it a snare to submit to the conduct of the Parliaments Friends? they show by this who they were for, as tey have done also by firing of the poor Countrey-peoples Houses. But say the Petitioners, We had been commanded out of our garrison, and others placed in; that at the Parliaments Restitution were enemies to them, and by such who could show no Authority for their so doing. Answ. Is it possible, that any man should have so much confidence to present such a Petition to the Parliament, from persons that have stood it out to the utmost against them, and yet pretending they are still faithful; or have they no way to justify the Forty seven Petitioners, but by condemning the Fidelity of a whole Army; for either the one or the other must be transgressors: And surely had the Army been under guilt, the Thanks of the House had never been sent them for their good service. But seeing they have the boldness to assert again, That many of them were enemies to the Parliament, when restored; I must here again give them a second challenge, to name one man of so many that is guilty of this charge. But the Forty seven say, That the Officers could show no Authority for what they did. Answ. It is Authority sufficient, and justifiable by all Laws, Sacred, Civil, and Military, to assert, though to the loss of life, the Freedom and privileges of the supreme Powers of the Nations, against their sinful Interruptors: What Authority had the private Soldiers about this City to cast off their Officers? but lead to it by the same necessity their Friends were in Ireland( though somewhat in a different manner.) Such a prentece might any Fort in Scotland have made against General monk, for want of a Qu●rum, whose actions( notwithstanding) have renowned him to Posterity, for his Courage and Fidelity. As to the latter part of the Petition, relating to Lieut. General Ludlow, crying up his former good service, And that his Commission being still in force, they could not but own him; much may be said in answer, which because touched before, shall be omitted. But as to his present actings, which( for ought I know) may easily kick down his former merits, Sub judice lis est, I will not prejudge him. Onely by the often repetition of his former merits, we may guess at the Author.  
Lastly, The Petitioners conclude Affirmatively, That all their Besiegers( which were a considerable number of Foot, Horse, and Dragoons, commanded by Lieut. Colonel Scot) were enemies to the Parliament at their first Restitution, and much rejoiced at their last Interruption. Answ. But they durst not affix their Condemnations, either one or the other, to particular persons, their Fidelity being so well known; and therefore as they begin with hypocrisy, so they end with Lies.  
What remains therefore in Answer to their Prayer ▪ but this, namely, That the Parliament do believe them to be as they are, and have been represented by Faithful Friends, enemies who have endeavoured to involve that Nation into Blood and War; that have not submitted within the time prefixed, and therefore deserve justly to be questioned for their Rebellion.  Amicus certus in re incertâ cernitur.  

Postscript.  
THis Petition had perished in oblivion, instead of being answered, had it not been full of reproaches; and thereby the Honor of this Parliament secretly wounded, for the Thanks of the House, sent them for what they had done.  
FINIS.