THE IRISH REBELLION OF 1641 THE IRISH REBELLION OF 1641 WITH A HISTORY OF THE EVENTS WHICH LED UP TO AND SUCCEEDED IT BY LORD ERNEST HAMILTON AUTHOB OF " THE FIRST SBVEN DIVISIONS," " THI SOUL OF UL8TEK," JSTC. NEW YORK E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY 1920 PREFACE THE following pages, in continuance of the volume devoted to Elizabethan Ulster, aim at carrying on the history of the province up to the time of the Cromwellian Settle- ment. In the middle of the path along which the narrative travels stands the Irish rising of 1641. Many writers, in a generous reluctance to lay bare the details of that rising, have skirted the subject and passed on to the wars beyond. Others, whose subject has been the history of the four provinces rather than of one only, have contented them- selves with the recital of a few disconnected incidents which occurred during the first nine months (i.e. the massacre period) of the rising. In a history which gives precedence to the affairs of Ulster a mere superficial survey of the events which more than any others have helped to shape the destinies of the province would be an absurdity. For the first time, therefore, the main incidents of the rising have been ranged in chronological order and presented as a com- plete story. These incidents furnish a very dreadful picture, but it is a picture which cannot be avoided unless truth is to be designedly pushed out of sight and romance substituted for history. If any good resulted from such a course it would be justified and might even be desirable; but it is quite certain that good does not arise from it on the contrary, much evil. Where, in the written history of a country, the balance of rights and wrongs is purposely upset, a false perspec- tive is created which cannot fail to work mischievously. No matter to what extent British historians from a mistaken sense of generosity may suppress certain events in Irish history which reflect discredit on the native race, it is quite certain that the same will never be done on the other side. There is not, and never will be, any suppres- 2060813 vi PREFACE sion of similar facts which reflect discredit on the British. These are mercilessly made the most of. As a result it comes about that the native, or Celtic, Irish, from their earliest childhood, are fed on legends hi which their an- cestors are depicted as the inoffensive victims of English tyranny. These legends are taken seriously and are believed. The passions of the rising generation are in- flamed by the harrowing pictures drawn of injuries inflicted hi the past, and undying hatred of England follows. There is no disposition to probe into the truth of these romances ; they rank as dogma. It inevitably follows that the truth, when plainly put, has all the appearance of a malicious libel, and as such is bitterly resented. Nevertheless, it is certain that a country, no less than a man or woman, must know itself before it can claim the right to judge others. Nor is there any reason that self-knowledge should bring with it any sense of humili- ation. The 1641 massacres are no greater slur on the Irish nation than the Reign of Terror is on the French nation or Bolshevism on Russia as a whole. All three represent the temporary ascendancy of the brute element. The chief indictment against the better-class Irish of the seventeenth century is one of moral cowardice in shrinking from the suppression of outrages of which they at heart disapproved. Many did splendid work in rescuing the hunted British, but none had the courage to stand up to and punish the ruffians who ruled society. The aim of the following pages is to present the bald truth, as far as it is ascertainable from existing records, without any white-washing of either British or Irish excesses. Among the works of reference relating to the first half of the seventeenth century, Irish writers are adequately represented. With the cessation of the calendared State Papers, the historian has to turn for his material to letters and contemporary chronicles. Richard Bellings, Colonel Henry O'Neil, Friar O'Mellan, The Aphorismical Discovery and the letters of Owen Roe give us the Irish side of the picture, while Carte, Reid and Rushworth furnish us with the British point of view. For the details of the 1641 rising, in Part II, we are almost entirely dependent on British evidence, as Irish writers pass over this period hi silence. The evidence on the subject is in the form of sworn depositions made by eye-witnesses of the events PREFACE vii which they describe. There are thirty-two volumes of these depositions in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, and they unquestionably furnish evidence as reliable as any on which history is built up. In apologetic narratives of the rising these depositions are either ignored as though they did not exist, or else are disparaged because of their British origin. One or other of these courses is indeed forced upon any writer who adopts the apologetic attitude. Nevertheless, a careful study of the depositions cannot fail to convince any open-minded reader of their reliability as a whole. The various statements taken as often as not in different parts of the country and before different commissioners confirm and corroborate one another in so remarkable a way that it is impossible to doubt their essential truth. Estimates of numbers must, in many cases, be accepted with reserve, and discrepancies in the matter of dates call for occasional adjustment, but other- wise the depositions collectively furnish a coherent and, on the whole, a consistent story of the massacres which accompanied the rising. Some few are of an hysterical and obviously exaggerated character, and can be put aside; others furnish mere hearsay evidence and can equally be put aside; but even with all such eliminated there is still left a mass of first-hand evidence, supplied by credible witnesses, which can bear any amount of scrutiny. It is hardly possible to doubt that the story furnished by the existing depositions is an under-statement rather than not of the extent and ferocity of the massacres of 1641 and 1642. In some districts there were no sur- vivors left to depose. Some of the existing witnesses died of the treatment they received before they could give their evidence. The story must necessarily be far from complete, but even as far as it goes it is sufficient to establish the fact that there were very dreadful and extensive massacres of unoffending men, women and children. Then came the reprisals, which must inevit- ably follow in the wake of such deeds. These have been graven in stone, as memorials of British cruelty to the Irish, as unquestionably they would have been had the massacres not preceded them. In the light of the massacres, however, they merely appear as acts of just retribution. The age was an age of brutality, and, when the sword viii PREFACE was once unsheathed, many deeds were done on both sides which hardly bear contemplation. If there is a deliberate suppression of some of these deeds and a cor- responding advertisement of others, a false impression of injustice is at once created. Three hundred years hence the peace terms of 1919 would read as cruel and tyrannous were the previous deeds of Germany deliberately suppressed. A German would read them with a growing sense of wrong and of hatred against the nations responsible for them. Only by a full revelation of all the facts bearing on the situation can such a sense of wrong be cleared away and a better understanding established. The moment there comes a realisation of faults, weaknesses, crimes and cruelty on both sides, a truer sense of values must follow, and much of the bitterness which is born of ignorance will pass away for ever. A few fanatical patriots may still rave of ancient wrongs, but the great mass of reasoning citizens will realise that their perspective has been faulty and will admit just cause. CONTENTS PART I O'DOGHERTY' S REBELLION AND THE ULSTER PLANTATION CHAPTER I ULSTER UNDER JAMES I James I's tolerant attitude towards the native Irish Chichester's conformity Growth of the native population The plantation of Down and Antrim Difficulties in regard to the six escheated counties The Roscommon plantation of the Graemes Its failure The influence of O'Dogherty's rebellion on the fate of Ulster .... pp. 3-11 CHAPTER II SIR CAHIR O'DOGHERTY'S REBELLION Sir Cahir O'Dogherty His position in Ulster His discontent The case of Inch Island Neil Garv O'Donnell His arrest and confinement He breaks his parole His evil influence on O'Dogherty His treachery O'Dogherty's rebellion Seizure of Hart and his wife at Buncrana Capture of Culmore Fort Capture of Derry and death of Paulett Dis- creditable behaviour of Neil Garv Failure of the rebellion Co-operation of Shane Carragh O'Cahan and Oghie Oge O'Hanlon Indecision of the Pale Lords Rumours of Tyrone's return . . . pp. 1223 CHAPTER III SUPPRESSION OF O'DOGHERTY'S REBELLION Chichester's prompt action in repressing the rebellion Co-operation of Sir Henry Oge and Tirlough McArt Neil Garv's position Recapture of Culmore Fort Death of Sir Henry Oge O'Dogherty retreats to Glenveagh Surrender of Birt Castle Ridgeway pursues O'Dogherty to Glenveagh O'Dogherty's flight Treacherous conduct of Neil Garv His arrest O'Dogherty in Tyrone Death of O'Dogherty Surrender of Dogh Castle Trial and execution of Shane Carragh Executions at Coleraine and Lifford Shane McManus Oge Capture of Tory Island Neil Garv and Sir Donnell O'Cahan in the Tower . . . . . pp. 24-35 CONTENTS CHAPTER IV THE ULSTER PLANTATION The Ulster Plantation The case of Co. Monaghan The case of the six escheated counties Difficulties in connection with the chiefs Ridgeway's and Bodley's Survey Division of the six counties Undertakers and Servitors Their rents and obligations Misleading nature of Bodley's Survey " Profitable " and " unprofitable " lands . . pp. 36-43 CHAPTER V CHICHESTER' s POLICY Chichester sends 6,000 Irish to the Swedish wars Effects of the Planta- tion on the natives The custom of gavelkind Hostility of the chiefs to the Plantation The " Woodkerne " Chichester's religious aims Fine for non-attendance at church Ploughing by the tail . pp. 44-49 CHAPTER VI PROGRESS OF THE PLANTATION Distribution of Co. Donegal Distribution of Co. Tyrone Sir Henry Oge and Tirlough McArt Distribution of Co. Armagh The case of Co. Fermanagh The portions of Connor Roe and Brian Maguire Co. Cavan and the O'Reillys The case of Co. Coleraine Sir Donnell O'Cahan The Plantation of the London City Companies The " Liberties " of London- derry and Coleraine Rory O'Cahan's rebellion Execution of Rory O'Cahan and Brian Crossach Pynnar's Survey The case of the Brownlows pp. 50-61 CHAPTER VII GROWTH OF THE RACIAL PROBLEM Ennoblement of the Ulster magnates Hatred of the native Irish for the British colonists Insufficiency of the lands allotted to them Retirement of Chichester His death Character of Arthur Chichester His grants of land Reasons for his unpopularity Comparisons with Cromwell Increase in the number of the Ulster colonists Regulations against intermarriage with the natives pp. 62-68 CHAPTER VIII THE FINANCES OF THE STUARTS Difficulties of State Finance during Elizabeth's reign Prodigality of James I His questionable methods of finance General discontent Death of James I Continued' extravagance of Charles I Death of Buckingham Revolt of the Covenanters March of the Scots into Eng- land Defeat of Lord Conway at Newburn Submission of the King to the Scotch demands Charles I's exactions from Ireland The case of Sir Archibald Acheson and Sir John Hume The first subsidy and the " Graces "Sir Thomas Wentworth as Deputy General increase of rents CONTENTS xi Demand for six new subsidies Postponement of the " Graces " The King sues the London Companies Wentworth is created Earl of Strafford Execution of Strafford Parsons and Borlase Lords Justices Petition of the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses of Ireland Strafford and the flax trade His hatred of the Presbyterians The High Commission Court The Black Oath Its despotic enforcement in Ulster Laxity of the Episcopalian clergy The Milk Tithe Strafford's Roman Catholio Army pp. 69-87 PART II THE IRISH RISING OF 1641, WITH A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE MASSACRES CHAPTER I HISTORICAL REVIEW Review of political factions in Ireland and their effect on history. pp. 91-94 CHAPTER II THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION The causes of the rising Pre-war condition of Ireland Sir Phelim O'Neil His estates His indebtedness to the English Government Lord Maguire Connor Roe and Brian Maguire Their estates in Fermanagh The tanistry system and its disastrous consequences Sir John Davies on the Irish exactions Condemnation of the massacres by the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland The Multifarnham Edict The first endeavour at extermination without bloodshed Reasons for its failure Maiming and mutilation The dilemma of the Pale Lords Ill-feeling between the Pale Lords and the native Irish pp. 95-112 CHAPTER III APOLOGETIC VIEW OF THE RISING The pretended causes of the rising Their insufficiency Intrigues of Charles I with the Irish Sir Phelim's forged commission The " Scotch Peril " examined Mr. Lecky's attitude in the matter The exemption of the Scots from the first massacres Lord Maguire's statement Early warnings of the intended rising Weakness of Mr. Lecky's arguments The famine of 1603 Brian Me Art Attempts to identify the victims of the massacres with the Roundheads Mr. Lecky's inconsistencies The Lagan Force and its rescue work Evidence of the depositions. pp. 113-128 xii CONTENTS CHAPTER IV BETRAYAL OF THE PLOT The Acts of Limitation and Relinquishment Roger Moore The first intentions of the originators of the rising Discovery of the plot by Owen O'Connelly Arrest of Lord Maguire and Hugh Oge McMahon Attitude of the Pale Lords pp. 129-134 CHAPTER V DETAILS OF THE RISING IN ULSTER The Ulster rising Surprise and seizure of Dungannon, Mount joy and Charlemont Sir Phelim O'Neil reads his false proclamation in Armagh The British take refuge in Armagh church Seizure of Newry and Tanda- ragee Fate of Lady Blayney and her two sons The case of Glasslough Honourable conduct of Neil McCann Massacre at Corbridge Acrashanig Massacre at Clones Rory Maguire's dinner at Crevenish Alleged reasons for Sir William Cole's failure to warn the Ulster colonists His able defence of Enniskillen Massacre at Shannoth Massacre at Lisnaskea Loyalty of Brian Maguire of Tempo pp. 135-148 CHAPTER VI THE REBELLION IN CAVAN The county of Cavan Humanity of the O'Reillys Exodus of the Belturbet British towards Dublin Their terrible sufferings Congestion and mortality in Dublin Bishop Bedell His imprisonment and death The defence of Keilagh and Croughan Castles Defeat of Edmund O'Reilly by Sir Francis Hamilton and Sir James Craig Assault of Keilagh by Mulmore O'Reilly The assault repulsed Massacre at Belturbet Indig- nation of Philip McHugh O'Reilly Rose ny Neil's cruelty Retaliatory raid from Keilagh and Croughan Death of Sir James Craig Surrender of Keilagh and Croughan Castles The garrisons escorted to Drogheda by the O'Reillys pp. 149-160 CHAPTER VII THE POSITION IN DOWN AND ANTRIM Down and Antrim News of the rising is brought to the Bishop of Down Concentration of the Down and Antrim colonists Robert Lawson's defence of Lisburn Discomfiture of Sir Con Magennis Successful defence of Dromore by Colonel Matthews Its capture by Sir Con Magennis Humane conduct of Sir Con Magennis and his brother Daniel of Glasroe Defence force raised by Archibald Stewart of Ballintoy Inclusion of an Irish Company James and Alastair McCollkittagh . . pp. 161-167 CHAPTER VIII THE SIEGE OF DROGHEDA The siege of Drogheda Weakness of Sir Faithful Fortescue Lord Moore's energetic action Sir Henry Tichborne appointed Governor in place of Fortescue Reinforcements from Dublin Sir Phelim assumes charge of siege operations He captures Mellifont Abbey Defeat of the British relief force at Julianstown . .... pp. 168-171 CONTENTS xiit CHAPTER IX ARMAGH UNDER SIR PHELIM'S RULE Surrender of Lurgan to Toole McCann Hia cruelty and treachery Reticence of Sir William Brownlow Surrender of the refugees in Armagh church Atrocities in Loughgall church Probability of Sir Phelini's in- nocence in the matter Murder of Mr. James Maxwell and his wife Murder of Mr. Fuller-ton and Captain Price Murder of all Sir Phelim'a creditors His failure to rebuke or punish those guilty of atrocities Appalling tortures inflicted on those who concealed their valuables. pp. 172-179 CHAPTER X OPERATIONS IN ARMAGH Sir Phelim attacks Lisburn with a large army His defeat by Tyringham and Rawdon Ill-effects of the defeat on his nature His savagery aroused Massacre at Kilmore Courageous conduct of Mrs. Doyne pp. 1 80-1 84 CHAPTER XI OPERATIONS IN TYRONE Dispute between Cole and Hamilton as to warning given to Ulster The raising of the Lagan Force Perilous position of Sir Ralph Gore's regiment Audley Mervyn takes over Gore's regiment Sir William and Sir Robert Stewart Flight of Sir Thomas Staples from Cookstown Seizure of Moneymore and Lissan Flight of the colonists to Londonderry and Coleraine Preparations for defence of Londonderry Successful defence of Augher Castle Sir Phelim's repulse from Castlederg His insensate fury Second attack on Augher by Sir Phelim and Rory Maguire Com- plete repulse of the assailants Sir Phelim's revenge Many intended victims rescued by Henry O'Neil of Glasdromin and Tirlough Oge Rry Maguire's repulse from Aghentain Castle . . . pp. 185193 CHAPTER XII CHRISTMAS 1641 IN ULSTER Relief of Augher and Aghentain by Colonel Saunderson Massacre at Lisgool House Massacre at Monea and Tully Castles Defeat of Rory Maguire on his way home Massacre at Kinard Massacre at Portadown Bridge Massacres at Ballinrosse and Carrickmacross . pp. 194-201 CHAPTER XIII PROGRESS OF THE REBELLION IN ANTRIM Siege of Artagarvey House Massacre at Portna Massacre at Bally- money Repulse of the rebels from Ballintoy House and Dunluce Massacre at Oldstone House Murders at Ballycastle Supposed guilt of Lady Antrim Fate of the women and children belonging to the defence forces Retaliatory massacre of Irish at Templepatrick and Magee Island Date of the massacres Incorrect statements made in patriotic literature Conclusive evidence of the " Irish Remonstrances " as to date Con- sideration of the numbers killed at Magee Island . . pp. 202-212 3dv CONTENTS CHAPTER XIV PROGRESS OF THE REBELLION DURING FEBRUARY 1642 Congestion and mortality in Coleraine Defeat of Colonel Rowley at Garvagh by Cormac O'Hagan Defeat of Archibald Stewart at Bundoo- ragh Attack on Antrim by Tirlough Oge His defeat and flight Mas- sacres at Moneymore and Lissan Lady Staples's account Massacre at Kilmore Four-and- twenty burned alive in Mrs. Smith's cottage Trying experiences of Joan Constable . . . . pp. 213-218 CHAPTER XV THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE MASSACRES Attempt to introduce religion as an incentive to Anglophobia Con- demnation by the General Assembly of Roman Catholic Bishops and clergy of the atrocities practised on the British Increase in the massacres during the spring of 1642 Sir Phelim's offer to convoy the British to safety Massacres at Portadown and Scarva Lough Kernan massacre Estimate of numbers drowned in the Bann Estimate of numbers drowned in the Blackwater, Tollwater and Callan Three hundred drowned in a mill-pool *in Killyman Murder of Lord Caulfield and fifty others at Kinard pp. 219-226 CHAPTER XVI ORMONDE'S CAMPAIGN IN MEATH Siege of Drogheda Relief ship enters the Boyne Five hundred picked men surprise the town but fail to capture it Famine in Drogheda Success- ful raid by Captain Trevor Two more relief ships enter the Boyne Sir Phelim takes over command and orders a general assault The assault fails Ormonde marches north End of the siege Ormonde's movements handicapped by the Lords Justices Doubts as to his own aims in the matter Tichborne carries Dundalk by assault . . pp. 227-232 CHAPTER XVII THE LANDING OF MONRO General Robert Monro lands at Carrickforgus Advance towards Ne 1 ? behaviour The Killeevan Decree Terrible massacres in and around Armagh Murder of Mr. Tutch and others by Sir Con Magennis Hia remorse Probable reason for Sir Con's action Massacre at Tandaragee Friendly attitude of Hugh O'Conolly, Governor of Armagh Sir Phelim decides on the destruction of Armagh The British residents sent away under escort Wholesale massacres of the convoys Many saved by Alexander Hoveden and Sir Phelim's mother Three hundred British massacred in Killyman by Manus O'Cahan Massacre in Creevelough Massacre in Armagh Sixty burned alive in Blackwater church Exter- mination of the British in the Fews Rescue work by Henry O'Neil of Glasdromin Massacre in Tynan Extermination of the Kilmore British. pp. 233-245 CONTENTS xv CHAPTER XVIII THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS CONSIDERED Computation of the numbers who perished in the massacres Absurdly exaggerated figures put forward at the time The cases of Killyman, Clon- feacle and Tullahogue Rescue of many British by Daniel O'Hagan The case of the three southern counties British survivors found in Co. Monaghan by Lord Conway Down and Antrim Lack of details Fictitious battle atDeirendreiat Contemporary account of state of Antrim Terrible condition of those who were prisoners with the Irish Experi- ences of Lady Blayney and Mrs. Price Consideration of British reprisals. pp. 246-257 PART III THE CIVIL WARS IN ULSTER CHAPTER I THE TURN OF THE TIDE Monro returns to Carrickfergus Criticisms on the barrenness of his performances His expedition into Antrim Urgent need for his presence there The Earl of Antrim rides from Dublin to Dunluce His friendliness to the beleaguered garrison at Coleraine His arrest by Monro and sub- sequent escape Monro lies for two months in Dunluce doing nothing Famine in Co. Antrim Activity of the Lagan Force Sir Phelim's efforts to crush it Battle of Glenmaquin Defeat of Sir Phelim Capture of Strabane by the Stewarts The Lagan Force in Co. Londonderry Overwhelming defeat of Manus O'Cahan Capture of Dungiven Castle and execution of O'Cahan Belief of Coleraine Remarkable achievements of the Lagan Force pp. 261-270 CHAPTER II BRITISH RELIEF FORCES IN ARMAGH AND TYRONE Monro moves south Lord Conway captures Kinard and releases 200 prisoners Capture of Dungannon by Sir William Brownlow Supposed impregnability of Charlemont Capture of Mount joy by Colonel Clot- worthy Capture of Sir Phelim's fleet of boats Rescue of prisoners from Moneymore and surrounding district .... pp. 271274 CHAPTER III THE LANDING OF OWEN ROE Unexpected duration of the rebellion Causes of the same Change of masters and absence of pay Landing of Owen Roe His immediate elec- tion as Commander-in-Chief His emphatic condemnation of the massacres His military abilities and unswerving integrity Three ships from Spain reach Ireland with war material pp. 276-280 xvi CONTENTS CHAPTER IV GENERAL HOSTILITY TO OWEN ROE The Supreme Council of Confederate Catholics Its hostility to Owen Roe Landing of Colonel Thomas Preston accompanied by nineteen trans- ports Sir Phelim marries Preston's daughter Control of the Irish armies passes into the hands of the Supreme Council Change of programme Distrust of Owen Roe and the native Irish by the Lords of the Pale Dread of his ascendency The native Irish programme Its danger to the Anglo- Irish Defeat of Preston by the British at Ballynakill and Mullingar Owen Roe defeated by Monro at Anaghsamrie Raiding expedition by Chichester and Montgomery Owen Roe pressed for food He decides to retire to Leinster pp. 281-291 CHAPTER V THE CESSATION OF 1643 The Cessation of 1643 Understanding between Ormonde and the Supreme Council Unhappy predicament of Owen Roe Slaughter of his harvesters The King's reason for insisting on a Cessation Ormonde's terms Failure of the Supreme Council to furnish Irish troops for England Ormonde sends over two contingents of English troops Their defeat by Fairfax Food difficulties in Ulster Serious position of the garrisons. pp. 292-296 CHAPTER VI THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT The Solemn League and Covenant The Members of the House of Com- mons take the Covenant Enthusiasm in London and the Eastern Counties Delegates visit Ulster Conversion of Monro and the Lagan Force Londonderry takes the Covenant Coleraine, Lisburn and Belfast the only towns which hold out Belfast surprised by Monro Concentration of British forces at Armagh Colonel Matthews at Newry defies Monro Lord Castlehaven appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Ulster Irish Indignation of Owen Roe Ormonde furnishes Castlehaven with supplies Inchiquin joins the Parliament and raids Cork His ferocity against the native Irish Skirmish at Dromore Castlehaven retreats to Charlemont Monro at Armagh Quarrel between Castlehaven and Owen Roe Castlehaven withdraws into Leinster . . . .pp. 297-308 CHAPTER VII THE OXFORD CONVENTION OF 1644 The Oxford Convention Attempt to reconcile all Irish parties Un- reasonableness of the demands made Hopeless breakdown of the Con- vention It reassembles in Dublin with no better success Absence of fighting in 1645 The difficulties of the Lagan Force as regards pay Their memorandum to Parliament Their refusal to obey Sir Charles Coote Coote and Sir Francis Hamilton invade Connaught Capture of Sligo Saunderson's regiment left in garrison Ormonde authorises Lord Taafe to raise a Connaught army Recapture of Connaught with the exception of Sligo Siege of Sligo Rout of Taafe's army Death of the Archbishop of Tuam Parliamentary pay for the Lagan Force Audley Mervyn removed from Derry and Lord Conway from the command of his regiment pp. 309-317 CONTENTS xvii CHAPTER VIII GLAMORGAN'S MISSION TO IRELAND The Earl of Glamorgan His secret arrangement with the King Extra- ordinary powers conferred upon him Unfortunate effect on the public mind of the King's intrigues with the Irish Richard Bellings's mission to Rome Giovanni Rinuccini Glamorgan's secret treaty with Rinuccini Document discovered on the Archbishop of Tuam's body Public indigna- tion Charles's repudiation of Glamorgan . . -pp. 318-323 CHAPTER IX OWEN ROE'S RUPTURE WITH THE SUPREME COUNCIL Depredations committed by Owen Roe's men His indignation He is appointed to the command of the Ulster army His preparations in Cavan Battle of Benburb Complete defeat of Monro Owen Roe fails to follow up his victory Reasons for the same The Nuncio summons Owen Roe to Kilkenny Supreme Council arrange a peace with Ormonde Indigna- tion of Owen Roe and Rinuccini They march against the Supreme Council Sack of Roscrea by Owen Roe Surrender of Kilkenny The Nuncio imprisons the Supreme Council and appoints fresh members Preston and Owen Roe besiege Ormonde in Dublin Mutual hatred between Owen Roe and Preston Ormonde applies for help to the Parliament and to Monro Inability of the latter to move Conway's regiment ravages South Ulster Capture of Kells by Owen Roe Parliamentary reinforcements refused admission to Dublin, Belfast and Carrickfergus Desperate condition of Ormonde in Dublin He hands over the Sword to Michael Jones and sails for England pp. 324-334 CHAPTER X IRELAND UNDER THE PARLIAMENT Jones inspects the British forces at Drogheda Preston seizes Naas and attempts the capture of Trim Battle of Dungan Hill Annihilation of Preston's army Recall of Owen Roe from Connaught He besieges Jones in Dublin Owen Roe burns the Pale Lords' property And is in con- sequence denounced as a traitor by the Supreme Council Battle of Knocknoness Owen Roe attempts the surprise of Lisburn His defeat by Colonel Conway's regiment He withdraws with his army into Leinster and thence into Munster He is chased out by Inchiquin Rupture between the Nuncio and his new Supreme Council . . . pp. 335342 CHAPTER XI THE POLITICAL CONSCIENCE OF THE ULSTER SCOTS Growing dislike of the Ulster Scots for the Parliament Dominance of the Independents Their repudiation of the Covenant The Isle of Wight Treaty Growing sympathy of the Presbyterians for the King The Carrick- fergus garrison defies Monck Monck arrests Monro Monro's five years' imprisonment in the Tower Arrest of Sir Robert Stewart and Audley Mervyn Revolt of Enniskillen against the Parliament Ormonde lands 2 Xviii CONTENTS at Cork He assumes control of the Supreme Council Indignation in Ulster at the King's execution Proclamation by the Belfast Presbytery Charles II proclaimed King by the Scots Envoys to the Hague The Lagan Force joins the Royalists and besieges Coote in Derry The siege of Deny Sir George Monro joins the besiegers Montgomery's treacherous seizure of Carrickfergus Indignation of the Belfast Presbytery Alarm at the co-operation of Sir George Monro's Roman Catholic army Envoys sent to Derry Disappointment at the King's failure to take the Covenant The Lagan Force abandon the siege .... pp. 343-357 CHAPTER XII THE RISE AND FALL OF ORMONDE James Butler, Marquis of Ormonde His untiring energy in the King's cause Owen Roe a free-lance Both parties bid for his services Failure of the first negotiations Arrangement arrived at with Monck, who supplies Owen Roe with powder Overthrow of Owen Roe's men and loss of the powder Capture by the Royalists of Drogheda and Dundalk The Parliamentary troops join the Royalists Coote comes to terms with Owen Roe, who marches to the relief of Derry Abandonment of the siege Defeat of Ormonde at Rathmines Cromwell lands in Ireland The sack of Drogheda pp. 358-369 CHAPTER XIII THE END OF THE IRISH WARS Colonel Venables's expedition into Ulster Skirmish at Dromore Owen Roe remains at Ballykelly waiting to be paid by Coote His negotiations with Ormonde He journeys south again Death of Owen Roe His character Reasons for his failure Sir George Monro captures Antrim and Lisburn Death of Owen O'Conolly Surrender of Carrickfergus Defeat of Montgomery by Coote and Venables The Bishop of Clogher elected to fill Owen Roe's place His descent on Co. Londonderry Capture and recapture of Castle Toome Coote's precarious position in Derry He appeals to Venables for reinforcements Battle of Scarriffhollis Execu- tion of Emer McMahon Flight of Sir Phelim to Charlemont Capture of Charlemont Sir Phelim and his garrison allowed to march out with their arms Capture of Sir Phelim by Lord Caulfield His execution His character considered Conclusion of the Ulster wars . pp. 370-384 INDEX r - . A . pp. 385-401 PART I O'DOGHERTY'S REBELLION AND THE ULSTER PLANTATION CHAPTER I ULSTER UNDER JAMES I WITH the flight of the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell in the autumn of 1607, the main cause of unrest in Ulster passed away for ever, for, with the two chiefs, went the contentious titles of O'Neil and O'Donnell, never destined to be revived. For some years prior to the sensational disappearance of the last two representatives of the feudal system in Ulster, the province under a more democratic dispen- sation introduced from England had been happily free from all the cruder horrors incidental upon barbaric warfare. With the settled establishment of peace, the general economic conditions began steadily to improve. Ever since the contrite Tyrone had gone down on his knees before Mount joy at Melifont on April 8, 1603, the Ulster population, and the food supplies on which the Ulster popu- lation were dependent, had been gradually recovering from the terrible inroads consequent upon a ten years' rebellion in which both sides had made free use of fire and sword. With the submission of Tyrone, the engines of destruction had been laid aside, and the minds of all become concen- trated on the work of repair. Tyrone himself to the amazement of all parties and to the unbounded indignation of such chiefs as had remained loyal had not only been fully pardoned for all past offences, but had even been reinstated in all his old territorial rights. This mistaken policy in the main attributable to James I's natural hatred of his predecessor on the throne, and his consequent sympathy with any and all who had annoyed her pro- duced the usual disastrous results. Tyrone, interpreting the King's leniency as fear, at once started hatching a fresh rebellion in which the newly created Earl of Tyrconnell was his fellow-conspirator. Nor was this the only trouble. The restoration of Tyrone's old lands and privileges, 3 4 ULSTER UNDER JAMES I [CHAP, i and the sudden elevation into favour of Tyrconnell, had only been made possible by the partial sacrifice of the minor chiefs, many of whom had remained loyal. The evils resulting from James's policy of conciliation were in this way aggravated, for, while the favoured Earls were not wooed into even momentary gratitude, such men as O'Dogherty, O'Cahan and Neil Garv O'Donnell, whose past loyalty had in their opinion been inadequately recognised, waited in sullen discontent for an opportunity of embarking on the more profitable paths of disloyalty. Such an opportunity did not present itself with the readi- ness that might have been expected. Discontented and mutinous though the chiefs and sub-chiefs remained, in spite of sins forgiven and fresh benefits conferred, they were unable to communicate in full their frame of mind to the rank and file on whom they were dependent for their following. The people, in fact, had at the moment no enthusiasm for a revival of the old conditions. They were tasting joys and liberties hitherto undreamt of. The feudal system was for the moment dead, or at any rate suspended. The chiefs, under the lead of Tyrone, had made desperate but vain efforts to avert the reforms which threatened their ancient privileges. All the terrors and persecutions of religion had been called in to their aid. By a free advertisement of the cheaper Church formulae they had sought to mask their real designs and to lend a superficial sanctity to aims which were, at bottom, wholly sordid. In spite of all, however, the dreaded reforms had been carried out ; the old Irish exactions, coyne, livery and bonnaght, " cuttings and cosherings," had been officially banned, and the two leading representatives of the old order had fled a country which no longer offered them their old liberty of action. The blow to the Ulster aristocracy and its prescriptive rights was overwhelming, and, as events proved, per- manent ; for no pretensions to Royalty could survive the Plantation. For half a century after the events, this grievance continued to rankle in the minds of the dominant class always smouldering beneath the surface, and at times breaking out in flame and blood. In the case of the lower orders there was no such sense of grievance, nor was such to be expected, for they were substantial gainers under the new order of things, though 1607-15] INCREASE IN THE NATIVE POPULATION 5 at first only semi-conscious gamers. For a full realisation of all that the change meant to them time was required. The six-years' peace which followed on Tyrone's submission did much in that direction, for it helped to dispel much of the glamour which still hung around the old-established ideas. The people learned to stretch their limbs and breathe the air of freedom. James's rule of the conquered province prior to O'Dogherty's rebellion was, in fact, benevolent to a fault. Allusion has already been made to the causes which lay at the back of this mood. James hated the woman who had murdered his mother, and it was only natural that, out of these feelings, should arise an indulgent attitude towards those who had harassed her administration and rebelled against her rule. As far as the Ulster chiefs were concerned, the practical outcome of this mental attitude was all that could be desired, for it spelled pardon for all offences, civil or political, com- mitted during Elizabeth's reign. Chichester was only too ready to tune himself to the King's mood. With a quick change of front, he showed that he could be as considerate in victory as he had been brutal in conflict. His energies were now wholly given to the development of schemes for the protection and general welfare of those whom while hi rebellion he had systematically de- stroyed. The doctrine of extermination, which he had so freely advocated during the days of rebellion, was in fact no longer presentable. The country was at peace, and so far as could be foreseen likely to remain so ; the people were submissive, and, as such, immune from attack. A far deeper problem, however, lay before the administration with its sword sheathed than had ever faced it in the days of red war. War had kept the native population within bounds. The chronic inter-tribal raids which spared neither age nor sex had done more even than the English arms to stem the growth of the population. Now all these things were at an end. Never again would O'Neil raid Donegal, and O'Donnell in retali- ation raid the peasantry of Tyrone. Freed from these chronic scourges, and freed from the penalties consequent upon rebellion against the Crown, the native population might reasonably be expected to increase with alarming rapidity. Herein lay a danger which was not to be underrated. The question of planting Ulster with Anglo- 6 ULSTER UNDER JAMES I [CHAP. I Saxons from across the water was in the mouths of many, and in the minds of all. Chichester had been working to this end for five years, and James himself was not behind him in enthusiasm. The main difficulty lay in the fact of the native population, still inconveniently abundant and incredibly prolific. In spite of the famine of 1603 the scope and effect of which has been so grossly exaggerated by Irish historians the peasantry still existed in great numbers in the seven western counties of Ulster. Sir Robert Jacob, the Solicitor-General, reckoned in 1610 seven years only after the famine that there were 6,000 able-bodied men in Tyrone and Coleraine, 6,000 in Donegal, 4,000 in Armagh and 3,000 each in Monaghan, Fermanagh and Cavan. 1 If we take these figures as representing according to modern computation one- tenth of the entire population, it at once becomes evident that outside of South Antrim and North Down the famine attributed to Chichester had produced but little effect upon the population problem. Sir Robert Jacob's estimate of the native population, which was endorsed by Chichester's own observations, was at the time of its publication the occasion of some dismay to the Lord Deputy. " The country to be inhabited," he wrote in despair, " has no sign of Plantation and yet is full of people." The presence of these people seemed indeed a hopeless bar to the introduction of a new race on the scale desired. In the case of North Down and South Antrim, which since 1603 had developed into a British Colony, no such difficulty had presented itself. In these districts Chichester's devastating policy of fire, sword and famine had done its work. The native element had either been largely destroyed or driven north, south and west. In the eyes of the Irish territorial lords, who assessed peasantry as cattle, the loss of the population had shorn their lands of all value, and they were only too ready to dispose of them for cash. Hamilton, Montgomery and Sir Edward Cromwell were the first to take advantage of the opportunity thus offered for acquiring from the owners, on easy terms, lands, the potentialities of which they fully recognised. The lands of Con McNeil and Phelim McCartan were the first to pass into their hands, and by the King's 1 Chichester to Privy Council, March 10, 1609. 1606] READY SALE OF THEIR LANDS BY NATIVES 7 express command were to be offered for distribution to English and Lowland Scotch tenants only. The absence of a native population and the geographical proximity of Down and Antrim to Great Britain made the proposition a peculiarly attractive one, and suitable settlers responded with alacrity to the offer put before them. The undeveloped possibilities of the invaded country were at once apparent to the new colonists, and encouraged an extension of the Plantation so successfully begun. Piece by piece the new-comers bought up the neighbouring properties, the irresistible bait in each case being ready money. Shane McBrian, Neil McHugh's heirs and Rory McQuillan, each in turn parted for cash with the lands allotted to them by Chichester. They all alike rioted on the proceeds in short-lived luxury, and left their descendants landless, portionless and with an undying grievance against the British settlers. These swift changes had left the Route and Glynns in North Antrim but little changed. Sir Randall McDonnell, old Sorley Boy's son, in spite of having fought for Tyrone at the battle of Kinsale, was given a grant of 333,000 acres (practically half the county) extending along the coast from Larne to the Bann. The old McDonnell Highlanders still occupied a considerable part of this territory, especially along the coast line, but they were not in sufficient numbers to develop to the best advantage so colossal a property, and Sir Randall found it necessary to introduce a number of Lowland Scotch, who though antagonistic to him in religion and sentiment were the only tenants whom the rules of the Plantation allowed to be imported. Magee Island was given over to the clan of that name originally Scotch (McGee) but Irish by adoption and Roman Catholic by religion while South and West Down, Mourne and Iveagh were still thick with the native Irish. The Ards, Great and Little, remained in the hands of the old English, the first British colonists in Ulster. The ease and thoroughness with which the colonisation of Down and Antrim had been carried out, and the im- mediate response which the colonised country had yielded to settled industry, naturally added to the eagerness of James and Chichester to extend the operation to the rest of Ulster. 8 ULSTER UNDER JAMES I [CHAP, i From the British point of view, every consideration national as well as economic pointed peremptorily in the direction of Plantation. The experience of centuries had driven home the lesson that .only through the intro- duction of a more stable and industrious population was there any hope of the regeneration of Ulster. It was not only that the native element was reactionary to the core, and, as such, opposed to every social improvement or educational advance ; the real evil, from the point of view of the Crown, lay in the invariable repudiation by the chiefs of every inconvenient covenant. It was this traditional failing, more than anything else, which had kept the country embroiled in war throughout the three preceding reigns, and which at once drained the royal exchequer and blighted the face of Ulster itself. To a mind as shrewd as that of James I, it was unhappily clear that Ulster could never be a source of profit to the Crown so long as all dues had to be collected at the point of the sword. From the democratic standpoint the colonisation policy was also capable of logical justification. It was urged that the substitution of the recognised codes and observ- ances of civilisation, in place of the feudalism of the dark ages, could only result in improved living conditions for the masses of the peasantry. It was moreover hoped with a not unreasonable optimism that the establish- ment of a more advanced civilisation in their midst would gradually woo the natives from their primitive ways into the more prosaic paths of law and order, and possibly of social progress. It is quite clear, from the State corre- spondence of the day, that Chichester, whom patriotic writers delight to paint as a fiend of malignity, was genu- inely interested in the betterment of the native peasantry, and that he honestly held the view that this betterment would be assisted by the introduction of British colonists. In this policy lay the only hope of sustained reformation in the seven western counties, and even then it was recog- nised that the reformation would be economic rather than sentimental. If the natives could be converted from nomad herdsmen and sporadic bandits into settled agri- culturists and traders, there was every prospect of the country making headway as a source of revenue to the Crown ; but, even then, there could be but little hope of any 1606] DIFFICULT CASE OF THE LOYAL CHIEFS 9 permanent advance in loyalty and contentment. Against any such happy consummation two hostile influences could be counted upon to work ceaselessly and untiringly. As long as there were priests in the country brooding over their lost Church revenues, and as long as there were penniless scions of the native aristocracy thirsting for a revival of their own feudal rights, there could be no hope of a permanently contented proletariat. Religion and patriotism in combination have always proved an irresist- ible incentive to revolt, or at any rate to seditious dis- content, and one behind which the sordid aims of its propagandists can always be effectually concealed from the uneducated. In addition to the difficulties arising from the existence of a hostile and prolific population, the question of planting the seven western counties presented other difficulties little less depressing. Although the combined dependen- cies of O'Neil and O'Donnell practically embraced the whole of Ulster, and although the flight and suspected treachery of the two Earls technically laid the whole of the Province open to forfeiture, there still remained a certain number of loyal or semi-loyal sub-chiefs whose interests would be very seriously prejudiced by a British Plantation, and whose presence on the spot would go far to defeat the objects of the colony. Neil Garv O'Donnell and Sir Cahir O'Dogherty in Donegal, and Sir Donnell O'Cahan in Coleraine still held sway over vast tracts of land, to the peaceable dominion of which their recent services seemed to entitle them. In Co. Armagh Chichester himself had, before the flight of the Earls, established Sir Tirlough McHenry, Sir Henry Oge O'Neil and Sir Oghie O'Hanlon in the lordship over a considerable portion of the county. In Tyrone, Tirlough McArt O'Neil (Tirlough Luineach's grandson) had been apportioned large and profitable estates, while in Fermanagh, Connor Roe Maguire and Brian Maguire had in recognition of past services been officially installed as dominant lords over the entire county. The case of Co. Monaghan calls for special notice, because its position was so unique that, in the end, it had to be excluded from the Plantation scheme. The facts of the case are given in full in Chapter IV and 10 ULSTER UNDER JAMES I [CHAP, i need not at the moment be considered in detail. All that it is necessary to bear in mind is that the technical difficulties in the way of Plantation presented by the case of Co. Monaghan were the most formidable that Chichester had to face. An interesting circumstance which speaks eloquently of the difficulties which stood in the way or which were felt to stand in the way of the Plantation of the seven western counties of Ulster is to be found in the first attempt during the reign of James to import aliens on a large scale into Ireland. This attempt was not directed to Ulster, but to the distant county of Roscommon. For many years past the Graemes, or Grahams, of the Debatable Lands, the Armstrongs and Elliots of Liddesdale, the Scots and Crosiers of Esk and Ewesdale, and on the Cumberland side the Routledges and Hetheringtons had kept the Western Marches, or Borderlands, between England and Scotland in a state of ceaseless turmoil. These borderers recognised no law but their own code, which, though rigid in its way, clashed in many respects with the laws of the land. The ceaseless forays and raids of these freebooters had disturbed the whole of Elizabeth's reign, and promised to continue indefinitely through that of James,in spite of the technical union of the two countries. James, accordingly, resolved to remove these disturbing elements out of their own sphere, or at all events as many of them as could be satisfactorily provided for in Ireland. To this end he wrote to Chichester in April 1606, inform- ing him of his intention to transplant certain border clans into Ireland, and asking if, and where, he could find room for them. For the reasons already given, Ulster was not at the moment a suitable field for Plantation, and Chichester in his reply suggested Roscommon as being all things considered the most likely district in Ireland to answer the requirements of the King's scheme. Accordingly, arrangements were entered into with Sir Ralph Sidley for their reception in that county. On the other side of the water a committee consisting of the Bishop of Carlisle, Sir Wilfred Lawson, Sir Charles Hall and Mr. Charles Pennington were appointed to supervise all the arrangements connected with the trans- ference of the borderers from their native land to the wilds of Ireland. On September 12 the final agreement 1606] ITS FAILURE 11 was signed by Sir Ralph Sidley on the one hand, and by the Committee representing the borderers' interests on the other. The borderers though naturally unwilling to leave their native country offered no open opposition to a scheme as to which they were at no time consulted. The transportation was carried out smoothly and without hitch. The borderers, we are told, took with them their wives, families, farm-servants and horses. 1 In addition to the principal clans concerned we find among the lists of those who crossed the Channel the names of Beattie, Nixon, Irwin, Little, Foster, Murray and Byers. The Plantation per se was not a success. The colonists soon became dissatisfied with their isolated condition, cut off as they were from their co-religionists, and sur- rounded by a people who viewed their arrival with marked hostility, and after the great Plantation of the six escheated counties in 1610 they gradually drifted up into Ulster, where they settled down among their compatriots. It must always remain an open question as to whether the Ulster Plantation would ever have become an accom- plished fact but for the timely accident of O'Dogherty's rebellion. Prior to this disastrous affair, Chichester had not only been highly conscious of the difficulties attending any attempted Plantation of the seven counties, but had been hampered in his designs by a sense of justice towards the non-rebellious natives, who remained in great numbers on the ground. O'Dogherty's outbreak, however wholly unjustified as it was by any circumstances of the moment seems to have closed Chichester's heart to any of the softer feelings which he had entertained towards the natives since the termination of Tyrone's rebellion. It brought home to him the conviction that there was no remedy for Ulster outside of Plantation, and that, in order to make such a Plantation possible, it would be justifiable in some cases to go beyond the limits of strictly fair dealing. 1 Cal. State Papers, James, 1606, 873. CHAPTER II SIR CAHIR O'DOGHERTY'S REBELLION OF all the many Ulster rebellions, O'Dogherty's stands out as the most pathetic and the most insane. Sir Cahir O'Dogherty, whose name the rebellion bears, was a very young man, who as a boy had been installed by the Government as chief of Inishowen in opposition to the claims of his uncle Phelim, who was the candidate nomi- nated by Tyrone. As a natural sequence he had in self- defence been forced into alliance with Sir Henry Docwra in his long and successful campaign in the valley of the Foyle against Tyrone and Hugh Roe O'Donnell. In recognition of this support, and especially of some excellent services rendered during a raid on Cormac McBaron's cattle at Augher, O'Dogherty had been knighted by Mount- joy, and, in addition, had been officially emancipated in perpetuity from the traditional over-lordship of the reigning O'Donnell. After the flight of the Earls, young Sir Cahir w r as especially singled out for various honours and offices of importance. He was, among other things, elected a member of the Derry Corporation, and was selected as one of the eighteen magnates authorised to dispense justice in Ulster. He was appointed foreman of the Grand Jury of twenty-three that sat in judgment on Tyrone and Tyrconnell, and personally guided them in the true bill which they found against both the fugitives. 1 It will be seen, then, that Sir Cahir was under no small debt of gratitude to the English Government for the position in which he found himself. This, however, was by no means his own view. His sudden acquisition of wealth and power seems to have deprived him of all sense of values. In place of any admission of indebtedness, he succeeded in persuading himself that he was the victim of sustained injustice. The grievance on which he based this belief was in connection with the Island of Inch. 1 Gal. State Papers, James, 756. 1608] THE CASE OF INCH ISLAND 13 The peninsula in Lough Swilly known as Inch Island contained some 3,000 acres of excellent land. Shortly prior to Tyrone's submission in 1603, this island had been leased by Mountjoy (acting on behalf of the Crown) to Sir Ralph Bingley for twenty-one years. This question- able transaction evoked some very strong protests from Sir Henry Docwra, who pointed out to the Lord- Lieutenant that it was an infringement of O'Dogherty's rights which was in no way justified by that young man's beha- viour in the past. Mountjoy replied curtly to the effect that the transaction was completed and that the question could not be reopened. 1 Smarting under a legitimate sense of wrong, Sir Cahir then undertook a special journey to London, where he laid his case before the King in person. James listened with attention and in the judicial spirit on which he so greatly prided himself. At the end of Sir Cahir's recital he wrote to the Lord-Lieutenant cancelling the arrangement entered into with Sir Ralph Bingley, and commanding that Inch Island should be forthwith restored to O'Dogherty. 2 For some unexplained reason this command of the King's was calmly ignored, and Bingley remained in possession of Inch Island for a further five years. In the meanwhile, Mountjoy (or Devonshire as he had by that time become) had died and had so placed himself beyond reach of the King's displeasure. It is quite evident, however, that the latter was not unaware of the late Lord-Lieutenant's neglect of his command, for on April 8, 1608, we find him once more writing to Ireland and repeating his command that Inch Island was to be restored to O'Dogherty. Un- fortunately, the royal command was issued too late to stave off O'Dogherty's rebellion, which had broken out before the news of the King's renewed action in the matter had reached Derry. It is, however, very much to be doubted whether the course of events would have been altered even had the King's command been finally carried out. O'Dogherty was in a mutinous mood. It was claimed that Sir George Paulett, Docwra's successor as Governor of Derry, had struck him during an altercation, and that the affront rankled continually. It is beyond question that Paulett was a very unpopular man with all 1 Cat. State Papers, James, 1608, 652. 8 King to Devonshire, September 4, 1603. 14 SIR CAHIR O'DOGHERTY'S REBELLION [CHAP, n sections of society, British no less than native. Chichester, in a letter written to the Privy Council after the surprise of Derry, says : " he [Paulett] was so odious to the soldiers and the rest of inhabitants of the town that they would have done him mischief in the tumult if he had escaped the rebels and come in among them." l Against such a man Sir Cahir would no doubt have personal grievances, but it is difficult to conceive of any that would justify so desperate a remedy as that of rebellion. In spite of the sequestration of Inch Island, O'Dogherty was, by his own admission, better off than any of his ancestors had been, by virtue of his independence of O'Donnell.* For his relief from this vassalage tax, for his position as the ruling chief, and for the many honours and profitable offices bestowed on him, he had to thank the English Government. Unfortunately, however, in the case of O'Dogherty as in the case of so many Irish rebels one authenticated grievance seems to have obliterated all sense of benefits received in other directions. In place of being a grateful subject he became an aggrieved malcontent, attributing all advantages gained to his own outstanding merits, and thanking the Government for nothing. This puerile mood at its genesis may have been a spontaneous growth, but it was subsequently proved with the utmost clearness that it was deliberately encouraged for his own ends by the Government's nominal ally, Neil Garv O'Donnell. Neil Garv, who was the son of Con and the grandson of Calvagh O'Donnell, had been the most consistent supporter of the English throughout Tyrone's rebellion. His parti- sanship was not by any means disinterested, for he was a claimant for the chiefry of Donegal, which was at the time vested in Hugh Roe O'Donnell, Tyrone's son-in-law and close associate in rebellion. When Hugh Roe fled to Spain after the battle of Kinsale, Neil Garv not un- reasonably looked to be established in his place. Docwra, however who knew more about him than any one else was not sufficiently satisfied as to his merits. He had recently done good service against Tyrone and Hugh Roe, and had on several occasions distinguished himself in fight; but there were some unpleasant features in his i Chichester to Privy Council, May 4, 1608. 8 Ibid., May 19, 1608. 1608] NEIL GARY 15 personal character, which Docwra, in writing to Mountjoy, summed up as follows : " His extreme pride, ambition and insatiable covetousness, his want of any knowledge when he is well dealt with, his importunity in all things right or wrong, his continual begging and unprofitable wasting of whatsoever he gets, his aptness to desperate and unspeakable discontent over trifles of no worth." 1 The above propensities were considered so undesirable that there was much debate between Mountjoy and Docwra as to whether it would not be safer to nominate Hugh Roe's younger brother Rory to the vacant chiefry. While the matter was still under discussion, Neil Garv was sufficiently ill-advised to cause himself to be proclaimed The O'Donnell, with the customary rights, at Kilmacrenan. For this act of presumption he was arrested and taken to Derry, where he was released as a prisoner on parole and allowed the liberty of the town. This generous treatment was unfortunately taken advantage of, for Neil Garv broke his parole and made off once more into central Donegal. By this act of bad faith Neil Garv permanently ruined any chances he might have had of being nominated to the Donegal chiefry. Mountjoy hesitated no longer. Rory O'Donnell was created Earl of Tyrconnell and Lord of Donegal, and Neil Garv an embittered and discontented man had to put up with the lesser lands of the Finn Valley. Then, in 1607, Rory himself started to hatch treasonable plots, and on their discovery fled the country. No official successor to the chiefry of the county was officially nominated by the Government, but there is not the slightest doubt that Neil Garv took it for granted and not without reason that he himself automatically succeeded to the vacancy. All might have been well had this contented him, but his insatiable covetousness proved his undoing. Inishowen had from time immemorial been tributary to Donegal, the annual tax payable by The O'Dogherty being 120 cows, 8 and Inishowen ruled over by Sir Cahir had now, by royal decree, been declared independent of the tradi- tional tax. In Neil Garv's mind this constituted a griev- ance, and he set to work to get back his own, not by direct agitation, but by more subtle and underhand 1 Docwra to Mountjoy, January 4, 1602. 2 Sir Thomas Phillips to Salisbury, May 10, 1608. 3 16 SIR CAHIR O'DOGHERTY'S REBELLION [CHAP, n methods. While still posing as the Government supporter and ally, he insidiously sowed in young Cahir O'Dogherty 's breast the seeds of revolt, in the hopes that, if they bore fruit, Inishowen would once more come under his own dominion. Neil Garv's designs, on analysis, appear to have been singularly crude. He calculated that, after O'Dogherty had been disgraced and probably executed for his revolt, the lands of Inishowen would revert to himself as the head of the family of O'Donnell. His inveterate greed, however, once more proved fatal to his own schemes. While plotting O'Dogherty's downfall, he could by no means resist the temptation of bargaining for a share of the spoils should Sir Cahir by chance prove successful. The evidence on this point is so overwhelming as to leave no shadow of doubt, not only as to Neil Garv's treachery to the English, with whom he was in ostensible alliance, but also as to his treachery towards his fellow conspirators among the Irish. During the actual course of the rebellion his duplicity was only half suspected. It was only by degrees, as one witness after another came forward and gave voluntary evidence, that the full extent of his double-dealing was brought to light. . The first of these witnesses, and not the least important, was his secretary, Doltagh McGilliduff. Further damning evi- dence against him was heaped up piece by piece by Lady O'Dogherty, 1 Daniel O'Dogherty 8 (Sir Cahir's brother), Brian McCoyne O'Dogherty, Phelim Reagh McDavitt (one of the chief conspirators), Ineenduv (the mother of Tyrconnell),* John Lynchull, and finally by his two brothers Con and Donnell. 4 The facts brought to light by this formidable array of witnesses was as follows : Three days before the date fixed for the outbreak, O'Dogherty came to Castle Finn, where Neil Garv lived, and received from the older man his final instructions as to the way in which the operations were to be carried out. By way of encouraging O'Dogherty to irremediable recklessness, Neil Garv assured him that he had a secret understanding with Sir Richard Hansard, the Governor of Lifford, who had agreed to yield the fort into his hands." Buoyed up by these false assurances, Sir Cahir launched his effort 1 Cal. State Papers, James, 807. 2 Ibid., James, 796. 3 Ibid., James, 802. < Ibid., James, 782. Ibid., James, 705. 1608] SEIZURE OF CAPTAIN HART 17 at the appointed time, and as far as his own share in the undertaking was concerned with unqualified success. His treacherous ally, however, failed to support him, and in the very hour of his success he must have realised that he was betrayed and lost. It is time now, however, to come to the actual facts of the rebellion. Captain Hart, the Governor of Culmore Fort, and his wife were great friends of young Sir Cahir O'Dogherty, and the two families were in the habit of exchanging hospi- talities. Their relations were of an intimate character. Captain Hart was godfather to O'Dogherty 's son, and Sir Cahir had recently sold Hart 3,000 acres of land for cash. 1 There is a possibility that this last circumstance may not have been without its influence in determining Sir Cahir to go into revolt. In the 1641 rebellion, the first British to be sacrificed by the natives were those who had recently either lent them money or bought from them real estate, the idea being to wipe out the debt in the one case, and to recover the land in the other. There is no actual evidence to show that Sir Cahir aimed at the piratical recovery of his land ; but we know that he was heavily in debt when he went into rebellion, 8 and that his attitude in the affair from first to last was commercial rather than political. On April 19, 1608, the O'Doghertys invited Hart and his wife and infant son to their house at Buncrana, where they were hospitably entertained. As they were about to leave, they were to their amazement informed that they were prisoners, and would forfeit their lives unless Culmore Fort was delivered up. Expostulations and appeals to old friendship and the claims of hospitality were of no avail. Sir Cahir remained immovable. Hart and his wife were separated, and the former, having been bound, was taken to a room at the top of the Castle and was offered his life if he would assist in a plan for betraying the fort into O'Dogherty's hands, failing which he was threatened with instant death. 1 Hart replied that he preferred death to dishonour, and that no consideration would induce him to betray his trust.* Leaving Hart bound, Sir Cahir then so worked on the feelings of Mrs. 1 Hibernia Anglicana. a Captain Hart's letter, Cat. State Papers. Captain Hart's letter. * Sir Josias Bodley to (illegible), May 3, 1608. 18 SIR CAHIR O'DOGHERTY'S REBELLION [CHAP, n Hart by threatening the life of her child that, in des- peration, she finally agreed to do as directed. The infant son was left at Buncrana as a hostage, and the rest of the party set out for Culmore, accompanied by a number of O'Dogherty's men. On approaching the fort, Mrs. Hart advanced to the gate, and called out to the guard that her husband had broken his arm and required assist- ance. The warders thereupon came out and were at once overpowered, and Sir Cahir and his men marched unopposed into the Castle. The Culmore garrison were made prisoners, and, together with the two Harts, were confined in the cellars from which Phelim Reagh McDavitt was at the same time released. This young man, who was a brother of the Hugh Boy who had exercised so remarkable an influence over Sir Henry Docwra, had been handed over to the authorities by Sir Cahir himself shortly before his revolt. 1 He was now released and appointed second in command to the rebel force. Everything had so far worked smoothly for Sir Cahir and his designs. It was, however, essential to his further success that Derry should be attacked before the news of the capture of Culmore had reached that city. He accordingly left a small garrison in the fort, and with about 100 men set out for Derry. On approaching the city he divided his force into two parties, of which he himself commanded one and Phelim Reagh the other. The six miles which separated Culmore from Derry were quickly covered. The city was found wrapped in unsuspecting slumber. We learn that, during the lax rule of Sir George Paulett, no attempt was made to maintain regular guards, and of this fact the assailants were fully aware. The country had now been at peace for five years. Neil Garv and Sir Cahir O'Dogherty, the two native chiefs who ruled the neighbouring country, were reckoned among the firmest friends of the English. There was perhaps some excuse for a certain negligence, but to relax discipline as Paulett did was bound sooner or later to prove fatal in a country such as Ireland. Derry at the time was an open city, the only walled building being the fort at the top of the hill. Even here there was evidently no guard kept, for Phelim Reagh and his fifty men made their entry unopposed. Inside George Paulett and his Lieuten- 1 Col. State Papers, James, 662 and 682. 1608] CAPTURE OF DERRY 19 ant and Ensign were asleep. They seized their swords and defended themselves as best they could, but all three were quickly killed, as were also Mr. Corbett and one or two others. 1 In the meanwhile O'Dogherty had succeeded in making himself master of the storehouse, where the watchman was found asleep. There appears to have been no resist- ance, but Mr. Harris, the sub-sheriff of Donegal, who slept there, was killed. In other parts of the city, some of the surprised officers showed considerable gallantry. Lieutenant Gordon ran out into the street in his night-dress, sword in hand and managed to kill two of his assailants before he was himself killed. In another part of the town Captain Vaughan defended himself for some time in his own house, but finally surrendered upon terms. The most successful resistance was that put up by Lieutenant Baker. This young officer, at the first alarm, herded some twenty men, and two hundred women and children, into the Bishop's house, and into the adjoining house belonging to Sheriff Babington. Here they successfully defended themselves for two days. Finally Sir Cahir was forced to have one of the guns from Culmore brought up and trained on the two houses, whereupon those within surrendered. The men were made prisoners, contrary to the advice of Neil Garv, who had counselled Sir Cahir to kill every one without distinction. 1 The women and children were eventually allowed to go free, but not, we are given to understand, before they had been stripped and very villainously used. 3 Lady Paulett and Mrs. Montgomery, the Bishop's wife, were the only women detained. They were sent off to Birt Castle. Derry itself was spoiled of everything it possessed of value, and was then burnt to the ground. The church and the fort were the only two buildings which defied the flames and remained standing. 4 The behaviour of Neil Garv during the taking of Derry was peculiar and very characteristic. In place of co- operating, as he had promised, by surprising Lifford while O'Dogherty was busy with Derry, he was irresistibly 1 Report of the surprise of Deny, Gal. State Papers. 2 Evidence of John Lynchull and Doltagh McGilliduff 8 Deputy to Neil Garv, May 1, 1608. Cat. State Papers, James, 737. 20 SIR CAHIR O'DOGHERTY'S REBELLION [CHAP, n drawn to the neighbourhood of the principal city by the prospect of the spoil to be there gained. Lifford itself was no richer than Culmore ; both were merely military stations necessary for the protection of Derry in its then unwalled state, but offering no attractions in the way of plunder. The wealth of the district was undoubtedly in Derry. Whether, but for his inveterate avarice, Neil Garv could have carried out his part of the compact and seized Lifford we do not know. All that is certain is that the idea of Sir Cahir seizing the wealthy city while he himself was occupied with an unproductive fort was intolerable to Neil Garv. He resolved in any case to be near enough to the scene of action to keep a watchful eye on Sir Cahir and his division of the spoil. With this mercenary end in view he turned the aged Ineenduv, and all her retainers, out of Mongavlin Castle, and there in- stalled himself so that he could better watch the operations in Derry. He even adopted the precautionary measure of sending some of his men into Derry with orders to seize anything they could lay hands on, and to estimate as far as was in their power the total value of the spoil. The first part of these orders Neil Garv's men carried out with no small degree of success, for they managed to appropriate a considerable share of the booty, including the Bishop of Derry's two best horses, with which they returned in triumph to Mongavlin. Whether it was that Sir Cahir was incensed at these unauthorised seizures, or merely disgusted at Neil Garv's failure to live up to his agreement in the matter of Lifford, cannot be decided with certainty, nor is it a matter of importance. For one reason or the other, or possibly from mere niggard- liness, he contented himself with sending his associate in rebellion two small silver cups as his share of the spoil. To a man of Neil Garv's covetous nature such an offering was little less than an insult, and he returned the cups with the announcement that he would have half the spoil or nothing. Foiled in his design of sharing the Derry plunder, Neil Garv looked eagerly right and left for other opportunities of turning the situation to his financial advantage. Leaving Mongavlin to be reoccupied by the unfortunate Ineenduv, he rode to Lifford, where he succeeded in persuading Sir Richard Hansard that the Lifford cattle ran a serious 1608] FAILURE OF O'DOGHERTY'S REBELLION 21 danger of being seized upon by the rebels if they remained where they were. He suggested driving them up to his own fastnesses in the Finn Valley, whence the garrison would be able to draw upon them for their needs as re- quired. Hansard, in a weak moment, agreed, and Neil Garv went off with the cattle, which, needless to say, were never seen again. 1 In the meanwhile, Sir Cahir had made no attempt to retain possession of the Derry fort, but, as quickly as might be, made his way back to Culmorc with his plunder and his prisoners, with which latter he was greatly em- barrassed, as the fort was too small to accommodate them. An easy way out of the difficulty would have been to have adopted Neil Garv's advice, and to have put them all to the sword ; but Sir Cahir was no cold- blooded butcher. He addressed a short harangue to his captives, in which he gave them the option of remaining where they were or of being put across the water into Coleraine. It is not surprising that they preferred the latter alternative. All the prisoners (including Captain and Mrs. Hart and their infant son, who had been safely sent over from Buncrana the day before) were ferried across the Foyle and set at liberty.* It is quite evident that, in spite of the two initial successes above described, and in spite of further successes at Dogh Castle, Dunalong and Donegal Castle, all of which had been seized without bloodshed, 1 Sir Cahir realised from the first that his rebellion had failed owing to the defalcation of Neil Garv ; for, from the moment of his capture of Derry, he assumed the attitude of a fugitive in lieu of that of a conqueror. Phelim Reagh, with a garrison of thirty, was left at Culmore, and Sir Cahir himself leaving his wife, Lady Paulett and Mrs. Mont- gomery in Birt Castle fled west across Lough Swilly to Fanad, where he was joined by Shane McManus Oge O'Donnell. Although O'Dogherty's rebellion had, as things turned out, dwindled down to a local splutter on the west shore of the Foyle, indications were not wanting that the aspirations of those interested had aimed at a far more widely extended movement. There can be little doubt that, had Sir Cahir 1 Cal. State Papers, James, 682. * Capt. Hart's Letter. 3 Neil Garv to Deputy, April 25, 1608. 22 SIR CAHIR O'DOGHERTY'S REBELLION [CHAP, n occupied and defended the fort of Derry instead of running off with the spoil, and had Neil Garv surprised and occupied Lifford (which had probably been within his powers) many others, who were waiting to trim their sails to the wind that blew strongest, would have raised the standard of rebellion. As it was with no place of importance in the occupation of the rebels except Culmore the co- operation in other parts of Ulster was of a very half- hearted character. In Coleraine, Shane Carragh O'Cahan (the brother of Sir Donnell O'Cahan, who was at the time a prisoner in Dublin Castle) took advantage of the spirit of unrest which was abroad to murder two of the O'Mullans with whom he had for long been on bad terms, 1 and to indulge in a little local brigandage ; but as a rebel against British authority he was never formidable. Farther south in Armagh, Oghie Oge O'Hanlon, a degenerate son of old Sir Oghie, and a brother-in-law of Sir Cahir, joined forces with Brian McArt's illegitimate son Art and estab- lished a brigand band, which for a time terrorised the district ; but here again the rebels' energies were chiefly directed to the spoliation of their own countrymen rather than to acts of political revolution. The O'Hagans and O'Quins of Tyrone were known to be ripe for rebellion, and Art McBaron, Brian Maguire and Tirlough McHenry were also reported to be in a restless and rebellious mood. None of these, as events turned out, made any active move towards rebellion, but Brian ne Savagh McMahon and Cormac McBaron's son Brian Crossach showed more enterprise, and taking advantage of the temporary paralysis of authority which they knew must follow on any rising pillaged right and left to their hearts' content. 1 Even as far south as the Pale there were elements of disturbance, for it came out in evidence that promise of help had been received from no less a personage than Lord Gormanston, leader of the Roman Catholic Pale Lords.* All through 1608 and 1609 there were persistent rumours afloat as to Tyrone's return with irresistible Continental forces at his back, and such was the glamour surrounding the name and office of O'Neil that though the exiled Earl 1 Sir Thomas Phillips to Salisbury, May 10, 1608. * Cal. State Papers, James, 775. a Doltagh McGilliduff's confession. 1608] BELIEF IN TYRONE'S RETURN 23 was now over sixty years of age there was a very general desire among his innumerable relatives in the north to act in such a way as to win the approval of the great man at his second coming. With the exception of Shane Carragh, all the prominent movers in O'Dogherty's re- bellion were connected with the Earl of Tyrone by ties of blood, and all were, as a natural consequence, bitterly hostile to the rival lines of Shane O'Neil and of Tirlough Luineach. CHAPTER III SUPPRESSION OF o'DOGHERTY'S REBELLION IT was unfortunate in the extreme for the promoters of O'Dogherty's rebellion that the Lord Deputy called upon to deal with the situation should have been Sir Arthur Chichester. Unlike other Deputies with a previous ex- perience of Ireland, Chichester had served his entire apprenticeship as a military commander in the north. No part of his education had been at the hands of the political intriguers who hovered around Dublin Castle. This was at once made clear by the vigour and promptitude of his repressive measures. Sir Richard Winkfield, the Marshal, and Sir Oliver Lambert, who were both at Newry at the time, received orders to march with all despatch to Donegal, and there re'store order. Shane O 'Neil's grandson, Sir Henry Oge, was invited as a sign of his personal con- demnation of the rebellion to muster all the forces he could at Kinard (Caledon) and join the punitive column. Henry Oge, who knew well enough that he was fighting his own battle, responded with alacrity, and the Marshal and he joined forces at Omagh ; Tirlough McArt attached himself to the expedition at Newtown, and Derry was reached little more than a month after the outbreak of the rebellion. Chichester's aim in dealing with the repression of the rebellion was in his own words to make it " short and thick." His method of putting this policy into actual practice is not one which adds greatly to the lustre of his name. He issued public proclamations in which induce- ments were held out to all the natives within the sphere of the rebellion to play the Judas to their own friends and relatives, if these happened in any way to have been implicated. Any one harbouring a rebel was to be treated as though a rebel himself, and any one giving up a rebel was to have a free pardon even though himself implicated, and in addition was to have a grant of the convicted man's 24 1608] CHICHESTER'S" SHORT & THICK "METHODS 25 lands. The expedient was by no means one of which to be proud, but it was nevertheless in a measure justified by its astonishing success. In the case of Neil Garv, Chichester went outside the terms of the general proclama- tion and made a special offer. He authorised O'Dogherty's false ally to raise a force of one hundred foot and twenty-five horse at the King's charge, and to deal sum- marily under martial law with any and all whom he should convict of participation in the late rebellion. 1 At the same time, in order to make sure of Neil Garv's adhesion, Chichester forwarded to the Privy Council a recommen- dation for a considerable extension of his estates. He added a personal assurance that, until such time as the promised estates could be legally transferred, Neil Garv should be entitled to a pension equal to the estimated revenue derivable from the lands. It is not to be assumed, from a consideration of the above overtures, that Chichester in the smallest degree trusted the man on whom he was conferring these remark- able favours and powers. That he was far from doing so is made quite clear by his letter to Salisbury of May 4, in which he expresses his keen distrust of the instrument he proposes to employ. His reason for so employing him was that, geographically, Neil Garv was in a position to bring retribution upon the rebels some weeks before any Government force could possibly arrive on the spot. With a view to guarding against any possible misapplication of the force which Neil Garv was authorised to raise, Chichester took his son Nachten from Dublin University, where he was studying, and confined him in Dublin Castle as a hostage for his father's good faith. In this par- ticular matter Neil Garv's good faith was never tested, for, although he took the Government money, he made no attempt to raise the forces for which he had been paid.* In early June the relief force reached Derry, which, with the exception of the church and fort, was found a heap of ruins. Captain Vaughan was left in charge of the fort, and an advance was then made on Culmore. Phelim Reagh had boasted to Sir Cahir that he would never yield this place while he had a man left alive ; but, on the approach of the Marshal, he thought better of his 1 Chichester to Neil Garv, May 1, 1608. 2 Evidence at trial of Neil Garv, Cal, State Papers. 26 SUPPRESSION OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, m resolve, and made off round the Donegal coast in two small English ships that had been captured by the rebels at the outset of the rising. With him he took all the spoil, and the smaller guns from the fort. The fort itself he burned as far as was possible. As pursuit was at the moment impracticable, Lieutenant Baker was left in charge of the fort, and the attentions of the relief force were directed to Birt Castle on the shores of Lough Swilly. This Castle proved too strong to be attempted by assault, and, as there were obvious objections to leaving it in undisturbed occupation of the enemy, it was finally determined that the Marshal and Sir Oliver Lambert should remain behind to await the arrival of a demi-culverin, which Sir Ralph Bingley was bringing round by sea, while the rest of the Government force pursued Sir Cahir farther west into Fanad. Inishowen except for Birt Castle was now clear of rebels, and the rebellion indeed, as a rebellion, may be said to have been dead. The punishment of the principals, however, had yet to be taken in hand. A price of 500 was put on Sir Cahir's head, and of 200 on that of Phelim Reagh. The former made no attempt to oppose the ad- vance of the Government forces into Fanad, but on their approach retreated still farther west to McSweeney Dogh's country. The Government forces under Sir Richard Winkfield the Marshal, Sir Thomas Ridgeway the Treasurer, and Sir Henry Folliott, and accompanied by Neil Garv, Tirlough McArt and Sir Henry Oge, followed in close pursuit. Sir Cahir, although showing no disposition to fight, none the less succeeded in leaving his mark on his enemy, for on June 5 Sir Henry Oge was murdered in his sleep. Sir Henry had insisted on taking up his quarters in a comfortable house which stood some little way outside the boundaries of the camp. Apparently a very careless watch was kept, and some of Sir Cahir's men broke in and killed him before the alarm could be given. Two of his sons, who were with him in the house, managed to escape, but Tirlough, the elder, was so badly wounded that he subsequently died. Satisfied with this exploit, Sir Cahir then made off with 600 men and several droves of cattle to the densely wooded and precipitous region of Glenveagh, where he might reasonably hope to be safe from pursuit. 1608] SIR CAHIR IN GLENVEAGH 27 It was, however, no part of the Government plan to give the chief rebel any breathing-time. The force was once more subdivided, Sir Thomas Ridge way with Neil Garv and Sir Tirlough McArt pursuing Sir Cahir, while Sir Henry Folliott remained behind to attempt the capture of Dogh Castle, which was defended by Neil McSweeney and Shane McManus Oge O'Donnell. Dogh Castle is described by Chichester as being almost equal in strength to Dunluce, and practicably impregnable by direct assault. The only course, therefore, which was open to Sir Henry Folliott was to invest the place till such time as the demi-culverin, which had been requisitioned for the reduction of Birt, should have been passed on to Dogh. As a matter of fact, the culverin arrived at Birt about the same time that Sir Thomas Ridgeway reached Glenveagh. Two shots, we are told, were fired from it, which made little impression on the masonry, but after the second shot Lady O'Dogherty came out and surrendered. She and her sister-in-law, together with Lady Paulett and Mrs. Montgomery, were then taken on board H.M.S. Tramontana, which lay at anchor in Lough Swilly, and which was destined to ac- commodate several more prisoners before she finally set sail for Dublin. The demi-culverin having fulfilled its purpose at Birt was at once sent round by sea to assist in the reduction of Dogh. During its transit, advantage may be taken of the opportunity to follow the movements of Sir Thomas Ridgeway in his pursuit of Sir Cahir to Glenveagh. The country intervening between the latter place and Dogh was of so boggy a nature that the direct route was barely passable by mounted men. Sir Cahir, whose 600 men were all mounted, had reached his objective by a more round- about but firmer route. Ridgeway's men were, for the most part, on foot, and as time was a factor of the first im- portance he resolved to leave his Amounted men behind, and to lead the rest across the flat morasses of central Donegal. Their destination was reached on June 9. It was at once seen that Sir Cahir's retreat had been well chosen. Never was any place more clearly designed by nature for defensive purposes than the Glen in which Lough Veagh lies. On three sides precipitous mountain slopes run down to near the water's edge. Dense woods choke the ground that lies between the water and the 28 SUPPRESSION OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, in hills. For an attacking force to have passed forward through these narrow gorges, barricaded with fallen trees, would have been a work of desperation even against a handful of defenders. Sir Cahir's force, however, was no mere handful. It outnumbered Ridge way's by three or four to one, 1 and was provided with ample food supplies. In spite, however, of his marked advantage in numbers and position, Sir Cahir did not think fit to await the attack, but made off across the hills before Ridgeway's force was even in sight. All that remained, as a memento of his recent presence, was a greyhound and the bodies of six dead men. 8 No excuse for this most inglorious display on the part of Sir Cahir can be found except in the possi- bility that Neil Garv may have designedly deceived him as to the numbers and equipment of the attacking force. We know, from the evidence of Neil Garv's two brothers, and from the confession of Phelim Reagh, that Neil Garv sent two successive messengers to Sir Cahir warning him of Ridgeway's approach, and counselling him to leave the cattle where he (Neil Garv) could find them, and to take to his heels. He excused himself from joining Sir Cahir at the moment on the grounds that he was staying behind in order to get possession of Ridgeway's cattle, which he undertook to add to Sir Cahir's herds, and to secrete in some safe hiding-place where that young chieftain would be able to find them when required. 8 As soon as he had discharged this duty he undertook to join the younger man. It is quite obvious, from what we know of Neil Garv, that his warning to Sir Cahir was dictated not so much by concern for that young man's safety as by the desire to possess himself of the abandoned cattle. Sir Cahir fell into the trap if such it was and, having delivered his cattle into the hands of his crafty and treacherous friend, fled across the hills into Fermanagh. It now remained for Neil Garv to get the cattle safely across into his own country at Castle Finn, where he had every intention that they should permanently remain. He accordingly applied to Ridgeway for two days' leave, which was granted. Sir 1 See Ridgeway to Salisbury, July 3, 1608 ; also Dan O'Dogherty's confession, and Col. State Papers, 781 and 782. * Ridgeway to Salisbury, July 3, 1608. 8 Confession of Dan O'Dogherty ; also examination of Phelim Reagh, August 3, 1608. 1608] ARREST OF NEIL GARY 29 Cahir's abandoned cattle were safely got away, and at the expiry of his leave Neil Garv once more joined Ridge- way's force at Glenveagh. In the meanwhile, however, his two brothers had informed against him, and he was arrested. The evidence against him was of so damning and conclusive a nature that Ridgeway had no hesitation as to the course to be pursued. He turned his back on Glenveagh, and, with his prisoner, marched back to Lough Swilly, where Neil Garv was added to the party already on board the Tramontane,. In view of the im- portance of the prisoner, and of the serious nature of the charges levelled against him, Ridgeway decided that it would be best that both he himself and Neil Garv's two brothers should sail for Dublin on the same ship. From Glenveagh Sir Cahir rode straight down to Fer- managh, where he captured a herd of Connor Roe Maguire's cattle, with which he made his way up into Tyrone. Here he no doubt hoped and expected to find himself at the head of a large following of sympathisers. In this hope he was doomed to disappointment. A man who ceaselessly turns tail, and who has not even one stand-up fight to his credit, is not calculated to inspire confidence of final victory. The country viewed him with little enthusiasm, and, when he started indiscriminate pillage in order to support his men, he became very markedly unpopular. He stayed nine days only in Tyrone, and then made his way back, to Donegal. His last act was to burn the late Sir Henry Oge's town at Kinard. He made no attempt on the Castle itself. 1 Sir Cahir arrived back at Dogh on July 4, almost at the same moment that the expected demi-culverin reached that place by sea from Birt. It is probable that his in- tention was to throw himself into the Castle, which not only bore the reputation of being the strongest fortress in North- West Ulster, but which also as will presently be seen offered special facilities for escape by sea in the event of capture. Except on this theory it is difficult to account for his reappearance in the neighbourhood of Sir Henry Folliott's forces. Sir Cahir was reported to have 700 men with him, and the first accounts which reached Chichester were to the effect that Folliott had attacked the rebel, and that a skirmish had ensued on July 5 in the course of 1 Gal. State Papers, James, 705. 30 SUPPRESSION OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, in which Sir Cahir had been killed. This report was brought verbally to Chichester, during his stay at Mount Norris, by Captain Vaughan, the Constable of Derry fort. The report, as afterwards transpired, was very far from ac- curate. There had been no engagement. Sir Cahir on arriving within sight of Sir Henry's camp had been killed by his own people in anticipation of the reward which had been publicly offered. Some such conclusion had not been altogether unexpected by Chichester, who had fore- told with some confidence that, should Sir Cahir return to Donegal, he would inevitably fall a victim to arrange- ments entered into with his own people since his departure. There is no record as to who was the recipient of the 500 reward, but we know that the money was actually paid to some person unnamed. 1 Sir Cahir's death was the forerunner of a series of calamities which in quick succession overtook the rebel combination. Dogh Castle, after withstanding 100 shot from the demi-culverin, was forced to surrender; but not before Shane McManus Oge and the majority of the occupants had managed to escape by sea to Tory Island. This was only a beginning of misfortunes. On the day following Sir Cahir's treacherous murder, Shane Carragh O'Cahan was in turn betrayed by the McShanes of Glen- conkein in whose country he was hiding. 8 They delivered him over alive to Sir Francis Roe at Mountjoy, who trans- ferred him to Dungannon, where in due course he was tried and executed. This important capture was followed a fortnight later by that of Phelim Reagh McDavitt. Spies brought news to the Marshal that Sir Cahir's foster- brother and partner in rebellion was hiding in a wood six miles from the camp. The wood was surrounded and searched, but nothing discovered. A second search, however, proved more successful. The fugitive was discovered and secured, and was sent under escort to Lifford to await his trial. By this time Chichester him- self had moved north. After spending some time at Mount Norris in Co. Armagh, he moved on to Dun- gannon where he held the first of a series of assizes which were little more merciful in their dealings than those presided over eighty years later by the notorious Jeffreys. 1 Chichester to Privy Council, September 12, 1608. * Ibid., August 3, 1608. 1608] CHICHESTER'S ASSIZES 31 At Dungannon, Shane Carragh was tried under common law by an exclusively Irish jury con; posed in equal parts of O'Hagans, O'Quins, Donnellys and Devlins, the first two representing the Tyrone faction, and the last two that of Shane O'Neil. He was found guilty and con- demned to a traitor's death, i.e., to be hanged, drawn and quartered. Chichester reports that the natives were much impressed, and indeed terrified, by the spectacle of this horrid form of death, which was new to them, as it was not permissible under martial law. Some twenty other minor rebels at the same time underwent the more ordinary penalty of hanging. There was no lack of prisoners to be tried. Chichester's determination had been to make the suppression of the rebellion " short and thick," and the methods which he had used to secure that end were productive of results which almost surpassed expectations. Prisoners were brought in day by day by their own kinsmen and associates. All those who wre proved to have harboured rebels were hanged without mercy, except in cases where the rebels had forced their company on those with whom they were found. Chichester enlarges with much pride on the great care which was taken to distinguish between these two classes. From Dungannon, Chichester and his legal retinue passed on through the famous woods of Glenconkein to Coleraine, where the performance was repeated, and another score or so of victims were hanged. The Bann and the Mourne were then crossed to Lifford, where Phelim Reagh was awaiting trial. His execution, and that of a number of minor offenders, quickly followed on the arrival of the Court. The work of the law was now finished. Chichester had, as usual, lived up to his principle of being strictly just to the law-abiding, and utterly pitiless towards mutiny. The only important rebel now remaining unaccounted for was Shane McManus Oge, who was reported to have returned to the neighbourhood of Dogh Castle. No sooner were the assizes over than Chichester set out west- ward to complete the work of retribution. In this case he was disappointed of his vengeance, for on arriving at Dogh it was found that Shane McManus had once more made off to Tory Island, eleven miles from the mainland. In the circumstances Chichester decided to leave Sir 32 SUPPRESSION OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, m Henry Folliott to pursue the culprit, while he himself returned by way of Glenveagh, where some of the rebellious O'Gallaghers were reported to be in hiding. This course was pursued, and, after an unpleasant cross-country march, Glenveagh was reached. Here the principal O'Gal- lagher concerned and several of his associates were found to be in hiding on one of the islands of the lake. Being surrounded on all sides, escape was out of the question, and O'Gallagher's fate appeared to be sealed. Chichester, however, was still prepared to bargain with him for his life, and it was eventually agreed that he should go free if he killed three or four of his best associates on the island. This he did, and departed in peace. 1 In the meanwhile Sir Henry Folliott had been prevented by adverse winds from attempting the passage across the eleven miles of sea to Tory Island. On August 25 the weather conditions moderated sufficiently to warrant an attempt being made, and 100 men were embarked in small boats. The north-west wind, however, once more arose, and scattered the boats in all directions, and the attempt had to be abandoned. Early in September a second attempt was made, and the island was reached. In the Castle ten men were discovered under the command of a Constable, who, on the approach of the flotilla, ap- peared on the battlements and asked for a parley. This was granted, and the Constable left the Castle, which was situated on a detached island, and crossed the channel to the main island, where Folliott and his lieutenants awaited him. The conduct of their Constable aroused certain suspicions in the minds of the garrison, and, as he was on the point of embarking, a man named McSweeney jumped into the boat with him. McSweeney was not allowed to be present at the parley between Folliott and the Constable, but was taken aside and independently interviewed by Captain Gore, while the other two con- versed at a distance. The Constable opened proceedings by asking Folliott what he must do for his life, and was told that he must deliver up Shane McManus Oge. This the Constable declared to be impossible, as Shane had left for Arran Island some days before. He was then told that if he killed all his ten companions and delivered the Castle 1 Chichester to Privy Council, September 12, 1608. 1608] END OF THE REBELLION 88 he would be pardoned. Again the Constable explained that this would be a feat impossible of performance single-handed, but he undertook if he were allowed to select three men to co-operate with him that he would deliver the heads of the other seven within two hours. To this Folliott agreed, after making him name the seven victims. 1 One of those named happened to be the Mc- Sweeney who had accompanied him in the boat. With this man Captain Gore had, in the meanwhile, struck a bargain, which was identical in all respects with that made by Folliott with the Constable, except that in this case the Constable's name figured among the victims in place of that of McSweeney. The two delegates then returned to the Castle, where each attempted to work out his salvation in his own peculiar way, with the result that in the end five out of the eleven were killed and the survivors pardoned. The Castle, in which were found two young children of Shane McManus, was handed over to Folliott. Thus ended O'Dogherty's rebellion. The principal offenders had now, for the most part, been summarily disposed of. Oghie Oge O'Hanlon and Art McBrian McArt, on seeing the fabric of rebellion collapse on all sides, had surrendered at discretion ; and, as the part they had played had been that of brigands rather than that of rebels, they were spared the capital penalty, and were sent off with 800 other selected ne'er-do-wells to fight for the King of Sweden under Colonel Stewart, after- wards famous as Sir Robert Stewart.* Brian ne Savagh McMahon was the last of the more prominent rebels to meet his doom. He remained in open rebellion till the beginning of 1609, when he was killed in a skirmish. The chief problem remaining was as to the disposal of Sir Donnell O'Cahan and of Neil Garv O'Donnell. Both were tried by Irish juries for complicity in the rebellion, but in neither case was a conviction obtained. In face of this unexpected check to his designs, Chichester advised that they should be tried by martial law and executed in Dublin Castle; but the King more mercifully and judicially inclined preferred that they should be sent 1 Cal. State Papers, James, 1608, 54. Ibid., James, September, 479. 34 SUPPRESSION OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, in over to the Tower. 1 This was accordingly done, Neil Gary's brothers being at the same time set free. The two political prisoners from Ulster joined Tyrone's brother, Cormac McBaron, who was already in the Tower ; and shortly afterwards Neil Gary's son, Nachten, was taken from Oxford, whither he had been sent after leaving Dublin University, and was added to the party. The boy, who is described by Chichester as " a pretty scholar but the wickedest boy he had ever dealt with in his life," * was not detained long,* but the older prisoners remained in the Tower till their death. They were given full liberty to walk about the precincts of the fortress as they pleased, and were generally treated as first-class misde- meanants. 4 There can be no doubt that Neil Garv richly deserved his fate, and may in fact be considered fortunate to have escaped so lightly. That he was the prime instigator of O'Dogherty's rebellion, and that Sir Cahir was merely his cat's-paw, was sworn to by so many of his own country- men that no doubts can remain as to his guilt. Sir Donnell O'Cahan's case was very different. Chichester, the Lord Deputy, devotes many letters to the question of this chief's supposed complicity in the rebellion, but without carrying conviction to the reader. There is evidence throughout of an intense eagerness to prove against Sir Donnell sufficient to justify his imprisonment for life, but in the reader's mind the suspicion is ever present that the eagerness arises from the urgent need which existed for the removal of Coleraine's chief before that county could be made the settled home of the London Companies. Sir Donnell's chief accuser was his brother Shane Carragh, who after he was captured volunteered the statement that Sir Donnell was behind him in all that he had done, including the murder of the two O'Mullans. 5 Apart from this statement which was probably volun- teered by Shane in a last effort to save his own life, and which may therefore be to a great extent discounted the charges levelled against Sir Donnell were of a most 1 Gal. State Papers, James, 1609, 454 ; see also Lord of Council to Chichester, June 15, 1608. * Chichester to Salisbury, June 2, 1608. 3 Median's Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnett. * Col. State Papers, James, 1610, 727. 8 Chichester to Lords of the Council, April 2, 1608. 1608] THEY DIE IN THE TOWER 85 unsubstantial and artificial character, 1 by the side of which the proved sins of Neil Garv showed up very black indeed. Yet the same sentence was meted out to each. Both men were incarcerated for life in the Tower, where Neil Garv died in 1626, and Sir Donnell a year later. 1 See Cal. State Papers, James, October 31, 1609, and James, 1608, p. 98. CHAPTER IV THE ULSTER PLANTATION UPON the expiry of the unhappy little outbreak known as O'Dogherty's rebellion, Chichester once more found leisure to concentrate all his energies on the long-cherished scheme for the colonisation of Ulster with settlers from Great Britain. This scheme, originally conceived by Elizabeth, but rendered abortive in her case by her refusal to sanction the introduction of immigrants from Scotland, was taken up with even greater enthusiasm by James I, who naturally did not share the Queen's prejudices. Prior to O'Dogherty's rebellion, James, and even the hardened Chichester himself, had been hampered by certain scruples in connection with the hardship to in- dividuals which must always be inseparable from any colonisation scheme on an important scale. The fact of the rebellion wholly cleared Chichester's mind of any such scruples, and appreciably weakened those of the King. In an attempt to overcome such as remained, he sought to justify his action on high moral grounds, declining to admit that his aims were merely mercenary. " Even if there were no reasons of State for the Plantation," he wrote to Chichester in 1612, " yet would I pursue it, esteeming the settling of religion, the introducing of civility, order and government among a barbarous and unsubdued people to be acts of piety and glory, and worthy always of a Christian prince to endeavour." l These words were written after the Great Plantation had been actually launched, and refer to the unforeseen difficulties and obstacles which rose up at each succeeding stage of the enterprise, and which would have broken the determination of men less resolute in their purpose than James and his Lord Deputy. O'Dogherty's rebellion may have simplified the Plantation problem from the standpoint of the high moralist, but it made little or no i King to Chichester, December 21, 1612. 36 1608] SCHEME OF DIVISION 37 difference to the difficulties in the way of its practical application. Though ethically justified, it was still no less difficult of accomplishment. The native population was everywhere abundant. Their removal to special reservations of their own represented a stupendous task, and yet one which was generally recognised to be essential to the success of the scheme. Both James and Chichester knew only too well that, unless the British families, which it was proposed to introduce, were able to exist as a self-contained colony, they would intermarry with the natives, adopt their religion, and slip back, in the second generation, to their primitive and unruly ways of life. Chichester's original idea had been a mathematical division of each county into two parts, of which one should be assigned to the colonists and the other to the natives. This idea did not survive O'Dogherty's rebellion. Not only did the fact of that rebellion modify Chichester's sense of obligation towards the natives, but it also made possible certain schemes of allocation which before could hardly have been contemplated. In the place of assigning to the natives a mathematical half of each county, an arrange- ment under which good and bad land alike would have fallen to their lot, Chichester now determined to relegate all such natives as were not special grantees under the Plantation scheme to the districts where bog and mountain predominated. The hardship of this arrangement did not at first make itself felt, for reasons which will presently be explained. It was only when the native population had increased beyond the limits which the lands to which they were relegated were able to maintain, that the real danger behind the situation made itself felt. With the southern part of Antrim and the northern part of Down already established as a British settlement by the vast purchases of 1603, 1 which followed on the famine, every opportunity seemed to be offered for the consolidation of the six northern counties of Ulster into an independent colony. In the three southern counties of the province the position presented difficulties which were less easily brushed aside, and which in the case of Co. Monaghan were, in the end, felt to be so insuperable that this county had to be definitely excluded from the scheme. The circumstances in the case of Co. Monaghan 1 For particulars see Elizabethan Ulster, Chap. XXXI. 38 THE ULSTER PLANTATION [CHAP, iv were as follows. After Sir William Fitzwilliam's high- handed and much criticised execution of Hugh Roe McMahon in 1591, that Deputy had declared the title of McMahon to be abolished, and had taken upon himself a redistribution of the county surface. In this redis- tribution he claimed to have created 300 new freeholders, of whom some few were English, but the great majority natives. Farney, which already belonged to the Earl of Essex, was not disturbed. During the twenty years which had elapsed between Hugh Roe's execution and the Ulster Plantation, the greater part of the English freeholders in Co. Monaghan had, by one means or another, disappeared. 1 Although Fitz- william's action had been unconstitutional in the extreme, it had never been declared illegal, and had in fact been tacitly sanctioned by non-interference. It was therefore felt that there was no legal justification for removing the existing freeholders, who were mainly Irish ! (McMahons, McKennas, McCabes, McArdles, O'Connellys, O'Duffys and McLaughlins) for purposes of Plantation. The county was therefore excluded from the scheme, and the titles of the existing holders were officially confirmed. Monaghan's exclusion from the Plantation scheme does not appear to have worked beneficially for the county, for in 1641 we find it described as " the most barbarous, poor and despicable county in the kingdom, Farney excepted." * The exclusion of Monaghan and the previous Planta- tion in 1603 of Down and Antrim reduced the number of Ulster counties to be dealt with to six, which thenceforth became known as the six escheated counties. The ethics of forfeiture in the case of these six counties calls for rather more than passing consideration. The question cannot well be dealt with in general terms, as each county had its own individual balance-sheet of registered crimes on the one side to be set off against acts of loyal service on the other. The case for each will be found set out in brief, when the new distribution of lands to the Undertakers comes to be considered. In the meanwhile, however, the ethical aspect of the whole situation requires consideration from a broader point of view. 1 Chichester to Lords, September 12, 1606. 8 Gal. State Papers, James, 1607, 166. 3 Lords Justices and Council to Vane, April 24, 1,641. 1608] FORFEITURE OF THE CHIEFS' INTERESTS 39 It is before all things important for any who would clearly understand the situation antecedent to the Plan- tation to bear in mind that the question of forfeiture was one which, in the first instance, affected the paramount chiefs only. In arriving at a decision therefore on the fate of a county, or of a portion of a county, the chief's merits or demerits were the only factors taken into account. As the desire for such a chief's removal on the grounds of treason were necessarily commensurate with the desire to plant his county with British colonists, it is not sur- prising that in arriving at a decision the limits of strict justice were, in some cases, severely strained. In such cases Chichester found a casuistic justification for acting as prosecutor rather than as judge, in the claim that Plantation would bring peace and prosperity to all classes in Ireland, including the natives ; and that, in addition, the latter would be freed from many galling customs by which they had for centuries been oppressed. This claim was not so unsubstantial as might appear on the surface, nor is it possible, from an honest reading of the State Papers, to avoid the conclusion that hostile though Chichester might be to the rebel chiefs he was through- out animated by a sense of justice towards the proletariat. All through his correspondence with the King and with the Privy Council on the subject of the Plantation and its attendant difficulties, the fact stands out that the aim of the Lord Deputy was not the extermination or even the impoverishment and ill-treatment of the native rank and file, but their reclamation from their primitive ways. His hope was to woo them to a sense of law and order and of the sanctity of contracts ; and to a further realisation of the advantages of regular living, fixity of tenure and fixed rents. Such reforms were obviously impossible while the feudal chiefs held sway, for they struck at the very root of their power. The removal of the dominant chiefs was therefore the first, and by far the most important, step towards a per- manent settlement. The very life of the scheme hung on it, and that to this end there was a certain colouration of facts is not improbable. Even with this admission fixed before one's eyes, it is difficult to feel for these fallen gods either sympathy or compassion. They were, without exception, tyrannous and merciless to those under them, 40 THE ULSTER PLANTATION [CHAP, iv and deadly enemies to every reform, whether social, moral or industrial. So long as such rulers governed society, and called the tune in manners and customs, it was clearly hopeless to look for the country's escape from the gloom of barbarism. It was therefore argued that, in order to effect a release, a certain broad reading of the case for confiscation was allowable. Still, though the tribunal that sat on the sins of the chiefs may have been biassed by its enthusiasm for the Plantation scheme, it cannot with truth be argued that, in the case of four out of the six escheated counties, there was any departure from the paths of strict justice. In the case of the other two coun- ties the action of the Government must always be open to unfriendly criticism. Before, however, considering the case for the Crown in each individual case, it may contribute to a better under- standing of the general situation if Chichester's own pro- cedure is followed. His first step was to look around for a fitting and capable person to undertake a survey of the lands to be redistributed. In this search he was certainly not fortunate, for his ultimate choice fell upon Sir Thomas Ridgeway and Sir Thomas Bodley, who though no doubt exemplary citizens in other respects had no special qualifications for the work required, and the result of whose efforts left much to be desired. Their methods were curiously crude, and, though they spent the greater part of 1608 and 1609 over their task, it cannot justly be claimed that the result of their efforts had much value as a guide to the superficial area of the country, or to the extent of land allotted to any individual colonist. The many and swift kaleidoscopic changes which, for ten or twelve years after the first influx of colonists, was ceaselessly at work on the surface of Ulster, detract very considerably from the value of the first allotments under the prospectus. A full record of these allotments, with the name of each Undertaker and Servitor, and the number of acres assigned him, is to be found in the Carew MSS. By a comparison of the names and figures there found with those returned in Pynnar's Survey ten years later, we get some idea of the astonishing amount of land which, even in those few years, had changed hands. Many of the original grantees did not even cross the Channel ; others, when they saw the lands allotted to them, returned 1609] THE ALLOTMENT OF "PROPORTIONS" 41 hurriedly to England. This was noticeably the case with those whose portions fell in west Donegal. Others sublet their lands for grazing, and lived idly in Dublin on the difference between the rents they paid and the rents they received mere middlemen, in fact. Others, though resident on their lands, failed in the conditions as to build- ing. Such infringements of the rules tended to defeat the main objects of the Plantation, and the penalty of forfeiture was therefore rigorously applied in every case where the grantee's shortcomings were detected. From causes such as these changes in the surface ownership were ceaselessly at work. As a guide, then, to the actual settlement of the province, a detailed recital of the first Plantation grants has little value. A further upheaval of the earlier colonial arrangements, as recorded by Pynnar, was caused by the great rebellion of 1641, which was followed by Petty's Survey and the Cromwellian Settlement, by which conditions were still further complicated. Never- theless, a short consideration of the Plantation of 1610 is necessary for a proper understanding of the situation which was then, for the first time, created, as between the original native Celtic Irish and the Anglo-Saxon immigrants. As the result of Ridge way and Bodley's Survey in 1608 and 1609, the six escheated counties were divided up into lots of 1,000, 1,500 and 2,000 acres, which were known as " smaller, middle and larger proportions." These " pro- portions " were assigned to the various British Undertakers by lot, others were assigned by selection to the Servitors and the native Irish chiefs. We learn that, as the result of the first distribution, assignments were made to 123 Undertakers, 41 Servitors and 63 natives. 1 " Under- takers " was the name given to the assignees who specially crossed the Channel in response to the prospectus. " Ser- vitors " were those who had served Elizabeth during the Queen's long-extended war with Tyrone, and who by virtue of their services were accorded certain special privileges with regard to the subletting of their lands to native Irish, which were denied to the Undertakers. Their rents, however, were higher. Under the terms of the original prospectus, the Undertakers paid to the Crown a rent of 5 6s. 8d. for each 1,000 acres, the Servitors paid 8 6s. 8d. per 1,000 acres, and the natives 10 3s. 4d., 1 Col. State Papers, James, 958. 42 THE ULSTER PLANTATION [CHAP, iv the higher rent in their case being justified by the argument that they were not liable, by the terms of their agreement, to the capital outlay to which the Undertakers and Servitors were bound under the penalty of forfeiture. The main item of expenditure, to which each Undertaker and Servitor was bound, was the building of a strong stone Castle and bawn (i.e. courtyard) on their property within two years from the date of allotment. The proportions applied for and assigned to the Under- takers and Servitors were as already stated in lots of 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 acres. These figures, however, are of very little value indeed as a guide to the acreage which actually passed into the hands of certain of the Under- takers, as by the curious method of reckoning employed by the surveyors only such lands as they considered " profitable " were included in the acreage returned. In their own language they explain their methods as follows : " Where, in the project, a county is said to contain a determinate number of acres Tyrone, e.g. 98,187, it must not be understood that the county of Tyrone has no more English acres in it, for it is well known that it contains 626,589 English acres. But the meaning is that the county contains so many acres of escheated " profitable " land, exclusive of unforfeited and Church lands, also bog, mountains, lakes, woods and other unprofitable scopes." 1 It is obvious that a method of survey such as this allowed the surveyors a very wide and rather dangerous discretion, for an allottee's grant might be extended ad infinitum by the simple process of classifying all additional lands as " unprofitable." A case in point is that of the Londoners in Coleraine. These representatives of the City Companies were returned as having acquired 37,000 acres under the Plantation allotment. Later and more scrupulous surveys brought to light the fact that their actual holding amounted to no less than 250,000 acres of excellent land, the balance having been conveniently classified by Ridgeway and Bodley as " unprofitable." Out of these disclosures arose serious trouble between Charles I and the City Companies, the King claiming from the latter heavy com- pensation on the grounds that his father had been defrauded by false returns. No rent was demanded from the Undertakers and * Walter Harris's Hibernica, p. 121. 1609] RIDGEWAY AND BODLEY'S SURVEY 43 Servitors for the first two years of occupation, during which it was reckoned that their time would be fully engaged in the building of their Castles. The native allottees, being under no such compulsion to build Castles, began the payment of rent from the end of the first year. The Undertakers were further bound by the terms of their contract to populate their lands with English or inland Scots only, and these were to be brought over as entire families, so as to minimise the risk of intermarriages with the natives, which were rigidly prohibited. They were in no case to sublet for a shorter period than twenty- one years, and then only to English or Scots. In the case of the Servitors this last condition was relaxed. Early in 1609 Ridge way and Bodley's Survey was sufficiently advanced to justify the issue of a prospectus. This document, of which unfortunately no copy remains extant, invited the attention of the adventurous to the opportunities offered for acquiring land in Ulster on attractively easy terms. The advantages to be derived must have been set forth with considerable skill, for the response was immediate. Applicants for the lands offered came forward in numbers. Their desirability as colonists was duly considered on the English side of the Channel, and their applications if approved were forwarded to the commissioners in Ireland to be dealt with according to the terms of the prospectus. The commissioners appointed to carry out the actual work of allotment were Sir John Davies, Sir Anthony St. Leger, Sir Henry Docwra (now returned to Ireland as Treasurer at Wars), Sir Oliver St. John, Sir James Fullerton and Mr. Ley. These six started from Dublin for the north on July 31, 1609. The difficulties and complications they had to contend with were of a very serious nature, and over a year elapsed before their dispositions were completed. Then the doors of invasion were thrown open, and in August and September 1610 the first contingent of colonists crossed the water with their families, retainers and household gods. The great Ulster Plantation had commenced. CHAPTER V CHICHESTER'S POLICY THE Survey returned by Ridgeway and Bodley, rough and slipshod though it might be, was sufficiently descriptive to allow of the original allotments being made, but it did nothing towards solving or modifying the " native " difficulty. Chichester made certain ineffectual efforts in this direction by enlisting some of the worst characters in the country men whom he describes as "an unpro- fitable burden of the earth, cruel, wild malefactors " for foreign service. In the autumn of 1609 three ships carrying 800 of these men left Derry for Sweden under Colonel Stewart, later on to be better known as Sir Robert Stewart, the commander of the famous Lagan Force. By the end of 1614, 6,000 men had in all been sent across the seas to swell the army of Gustavus Adolphus. They did not, however, prove a success, and the Swedish King declined to accept any more. 1 With regard to those that were left, the only possible course that remained open was to remove them from the proportions allotted to the colonists and to concentrate them in reservations. These reservations were necessarily on the lands which were not allotted to the Undertakers, and which were therefore scheduled as unprofitable. By the condemnation of the natives to these unprofitable lands mountain, rock and bog the seeds of the undying Ulster question were sown. For centuries to come, the descendants of the transplanted natives were doomed to look down from their barren holdings on to the fat lowlands developing unexpected riches under the industry of aliens. The circumstances surrounding their transfer soon became buried in oblivion, and the true facts of the case were replaced by legends of inflammatory tendency. A bitter sense of wrong smouldered beneath the surface, needing but a well-directed breath to fan it into flame. 1 Bagwell's Ireland under the Stuarts. 44 1610] THE CUSTOM OF GAVELKIND 45 And yet it does not appear that, at the time of transfer, the natives were conscious of any sense of injury. A careful and unprejudiced reading of the records of the period tends to leave the impression that the rank and file among the natives of Ulster were not unfavourably disposed towards the dislocation of pre-existing conditions which accompanied the Plantation. They found indeed many substantial compensations for their relegation to the wilds. Not the least of these was that the Irish peasants now became for the first time established householders, with a knowledge of the meaning of the word " home." Under the old Irish custom of gavelkind, land did not belong to the individual, but to the tribe ; which meant in actual effect that everything within a certain area crops, cattle, horses, men, women and children was the absolute property of the chieftain who ruled over that area. If a chieftain was himself an urragh (vassal) of a superior chief, he was bound to pay such and such a tribute to his over-lord, but the manner of his collecting that tribute was at his discretion. Under this system it was an unknown and indeed an uncontemplated experience for a peasant to have any fixity of tenure, or indeed any landed rights whatever. He could be moved about at will, or if the convenience of his chief was better suited thereby he could be extirpated root and branch. Even the produce of his labour was not his own, but his chief's. To this disastrous system, and its paralysing effect on industry, may clearly be traced the distaste for agri- cultural labour which has always been characteristic of the Celtic Irish, and which survives to this day, as an illustration of the ineradicable nature of racial character- istics which are the outcome of forced conditions of life. A biologist would describe them as the outcome of environ- ment. In substitution for the old custom of gavelkind, the Plantation scheme introduced fixity of tenure for the peasants, in return for the payment of a settled rent to their chief, or their landlord, as he became under the new system. In place of living as houseless and homeless nomads mere biped cattle driven hither and thither at the will of the chief each family could now enjoy its own home, to the undisturbed possession of which it was legally entitled so long as the annual rent was paid. The 46 CHICHESTER'S POLICY [CHAP, v peasants gained the further advantage of being exempted by law from the burden of having soldiery forcibly quar- tered on them, which, under the old Irish system, had subjected them to the intolerable oppression arising from the customs of coyne, livery and bonnaght, whfch in effect licensed the Irish gallowglasses to take from those on whom they were quartered everything they possessed. Against the disadvantages, then, of unprofitable lands, there were, on the other side of the balance-sheet, very marked compensations. If we can believe the corre- spondence of the day and there is no reason for doing otherwise the new conditions were warmly welcomed by the peasant class. " The freeing of the Irish from their lords has been a great step," Sir William Parsons wrote to Lord Conway in 1635 ; " they now stretch their limbs in their new lands, find themselves free, and proceed to build stone houses, make enclosures [of land] and put their children to school. They visit the exchequer twice a year, and pay all their feudal dues. Where before they purchased men, now they purchase lands. They learn English law, and have trodden down the yoke of the Irish lords, under which they suffered for nearly 300 years." * Letters such as these, written as mere communi- cations of news and without any special object in the background, leave an impression of a populace not only contented, but expanding pleasurably in many directions under the new conditions opened to them. It was only when an unrestrained prolificacy caused congestion on the unprofitable lands that the evils of the arrangement began to stand out, and that the natives in the reservations began to chafe against the confinement of their boundaries. At the first all was well with them. There were others, however, with whom all was very far from well. The chiefs and sub-chiefs, from the very first, viewed the new dispensation with the utmost ab- horrence. Even those who, on account of past services, were legally installed hi the ownership of large tracts of land, found cause for grievance in their restricted powers of exaction. Such men, e.g., as Tirlough McHenry of the Fews, who had been used to take everything he needed from his serfs, now found himself for all his 10,000 acres tied down to a fixed and limited income. The 1 Cal. State Papers, December 12, 1625. 1612] DISCONTENT OF THE CHIEFS' SONS 47 idea of living within the limits of a fixed income was repellent in the extreme to men reared on very contrary traditions. From the moment of the landing of the first contingent of Undertakers, they set to work cease- lessly, by every available means, to bring about a reversion to the old order. That such was their aim was only too well known to Chichester, but the knowledge had no effect upon his course of action. Such grants as were made to the chiefs were made as acts of justice rather than as acts of policy. The question of policy in such matters was not worthy of consideration. For every sub-chief that Chichester befriended or endowed he made a dozen enemies, nor was it by any means an assured fact that those whom he befriended would be moved thereby to any sentiments of gratitude. Chichester cherished no illusions on this point. " The Irish," he wrote to the Privy Council in 1609, " are all filled with treachery and malice against the English, which can neither be reclaimed with time nor appeased with benefits." 1 Ominously prophetic words, for, in the great rebellion of 1641, the two cruellest and most prominent figures were the descendants respectively of Sir Henry Oge and Connor Roe Maguire, who were the two Ulster chiefs especially singled out by the Government for favour. If the favoured Ulster chiefs, who received special grants of profitable lands, found grievance in the drawing of their teeth and the clipping of their talons, what is to be said of the dispossessed chiefs' idle sons, legitimate and illegitimate, who swarmed everywhere ? Hangers-on and sycophants of their big relations in the old days, acting as their bravoes, and living on their leavings, these now found themselves without homes or occupation. Work of any kind was abhorrent to them ; a settled state of society offered no opening for their peculiar talents. Some were shipped abroad by Chichester for Sweden, and the rest became brigands, a profession which called for no abrupt change from their former mode of life. They were known as " woodkerne," from the fact that their haunts lay in the impenetrable jungles of Glenconkein, Killeteagh, Kilwarlin and other thickly wooded districts, out of which they would sally forth at night, and prey on all alike, Irish no less than English. It is these brigand 1 Chichester to Privy Council, May 4, 1608. 48 CHICHESTER'S POLICY [CHAP, v " woodkerne " whom Thomas Blennerhasset very reason- ably bracketed with wolves in his recommendations as to the treatment of Ulster. He put forward certain sug- gestions that aimed at ridding the country of " wolves and woodkerne." The words are often quoted as evidence of the callous brutality of the British towards the natives. One Anglo-Irish writer, in his desire to magnify the wrongs of Ireland, ingeniously twists Blennerhasset's recom- mendation into a proposal on the part of the British to hunt the Irish with wolf-hounds. 1 The idle scions of the old Irish aristocracy, even when they were not brigands, were systematic disturbers of the country's peace. Discontented themselves, they left no stone unturned in their efforts to communicate their discontent to the peasantry. In this design they could always count on the co-operation of the priests, who viewed with feelings of profound gloom the installation in their midst of a large Protestant population. Both these classes worked with indefatigable zeal to prevent the country from settling down to a state of passive and prosperous contentment. It does not appear that the priests had at the moment any real justification for their active hatred of the Protestants, except in regard to their loss of the Church revenues. Apart from this one undying grievance, the hand of the administration lay light upon them. There was nothing, prior to the 1641 rebellion, in the nature of religious persecution. On the contrary, it would appear that Chichester though desirous of gradual reforms was averse to any form of compulsion which might be inter- preted as intolerance. " In this matter," he wrote in 1606, " I have dealt as tenderly as I might, knowing well that men's consciences must be won and persuaded by time, conference and instruction, which the aged here will hardly admit ; and therefore our hope must lie in the education of the youth ; and yet we must labour daily, otherwise all will turn to barbarity, ignorance and contempt. I am not violent therein, albeit I wish reform- ation, and will study and endeavour it all I may, which I think sorts better with His Majesty's ends than to deal with violence and like a Puritan in this kind." In 1607 Chichester caused the Prayer-book to be printed 1 See Preface to J. T. Gilbert's Contemporary History. 1612] PLOUGHING BY THE TAIL 49 in Irish, and later on he imposed a fine of one shilling per week on all who did not attend church. This fine was never exacted, but it afterwards furnished a useful weapon for Strafford, who shook it in the faces of the Roman Catholic members of Parliament when they showed signs of protesting against one of Charles I's exacting subsidies. Another fine which was far more productive, and which may suitably be mentioned here, was that which was imposed on the Irish custom of ploughing by the tail. For each plough so used Chichester exacted a fine of ten shillings, the proceeds of which were used to swell the fund which took the place of modern county rates, and which was devoted to the making of roads, building of bridges, and such other matters as were for the public welfare. Later on Strafford entirely vetoed the practice on the grounds of its cruelty, and because in the wording of the Act " besides the cruelty used to the beasts, the breed of horses is thereby much impaired in this country." The horses, or rather ponies, were simply attached to the plough by their tails. The result was that, when any stump or root was encountered in newly turned ground, the tail was all but torn out by the roots. Even after the passing of the prohibition Act, the greatest difficulty was experienced in prevailing upon the natives to change their manner of ploughing, the attractions of which, in their eyes, lay in its cheapness and the small amount of trouble which it involved. It was still in general practice in 1650. CHAPTER VI PROGRESS OF THE PLANTATION IT now becomes necessary to review briefly the actual application of the Plantation in its working form to each of the six counties involved. At the same time its justi- fication in each particular case may be considered. Donegal, the county farthest removed from England, and the poorest in actual resources, was perhaps, of all the counties involved, the one most incontestably liable to forfeiture. Hugh Roe O'Donnell's ten years of rebellion, his flight to Spain, followed by the treasonable schemes and guilty flight of his brother Rory, Earl of Tyrconnell, had beyond all question rendered liable to confiscation all the feudal rights of the main line of the O'Donnells. O'Dogherty's rebellion and death had opportunely added Inishowen to the lands justly escheated to the Crown, and Neil Garv's proved complicity finally extinguished any claims that treacherous subjects might otherwise have established to the chiefry of Donegal. The temporary confinement of his son Nachten was a precautionary measure which was probably justified in all the circum- stances. According to Meehan, the boy was speedily released, but he disappears permanently from history. Although the county of Donegal, as a whole, was justly forfeit to the Crown by reason of the mutiny of its principal territorial lords, certain among the sub-chiefs had remained sufficiently neutral during O'Dogherty's rebellion to entitle them to some recognition. The three McSweeneys and O'Boyle were each allotted one large proportion, that is to say 2,000 acres of profitable land. 1 Ineenduv was, at the same time, granted 1,000 acres at Mongavlin. 8 On the other hand, O'Gallagher, who had openly joined O'Dogherty, was shorn of all his rights in central Donegal. It is probable that others among the natives, whose names 1 Gal. State Papers, James, 1610, 703. 2 Philadelphia Papers, vol. iv. p. 133. 50 1612] DONEGAL AND TYRONE 51 are unrecorded, were considered worthy of recognition under the scheme, for in the original lists we find that thirty-eight proportions were allotted to Undertakers, nine to Servitors and fifteen to natives. We also learn that when the Undertakers saw the lands which had fallen to their lot in West Donegal, they, for the most part, declined going any further in the matter, and turned their backs on the country. Sir William Stewart, however, who was already a considerable landowner in Co. Tyrone, was more venturesome, and built himself a Castle at Kilmacrenan. In East Donegal Sir Richard Hansard rebuilt Lifford, which, in 1610, boasted no fewer than fifty-eight houses. The county of Tyrone had always been the very home and fountain-head of the O'Neils. The entire county had been legitimately forfeited on account of the Earl of Tyrone's rebellion ; it had been restored to him upon his submission, and had once more become forfeit upon the disclosure of fresh treacheries which had followed upon his sudden flight from the country. Here again, however, virtue among the natives was fittingly recognised. Of these the most conspicuous was Tirlough McArt. This grandson of Tirlough Luineach had originally been given a grant of Newtown and Strabane, and of all the lands between the rivers Derg and Finn, 1 but later on Chichester found that his establishment in these places interfered with the general scheme of Plantation, and Tirlough was given in substitution 3,000 acres of profitable land at Dungannon. His brothers Neil, Con and Brian were at the same time granted 500 acres apiece in the same locality.* Sir Henry Oge had originally been granted 2,000 acres (profitable) at Kinard in Tyrone, and 3,000 acres in Oneilan in Co. Armagh, on the other side of the Blackwater, but the Armagh lands were subsequently increased to 4,900 acres s by some arrangement (according to the Earl of Tyrone, of a questionable character) which gave Sir Henry part of the neighbouring barony of Turany. 4 The death of Henry Oge was quickly followed by that of 1 Cal. State Papers, James, 1608, 53, and 1610, 703. * Ibid., James, 1610, 733. 3 Walter Harris's Hibernica. * Earl of Tyrone's Articles, Cal. State Papers, James, 602, 52 PROGRESS OF THE PLANTATION [CHAP, vi his eldest son Tirlough, who left an infant son named Phelim, who, in accordance with the law of primogeniture, was heir to the whole estate. Chichester, however, very wisely decided that it was undesirable to associate so large an estate with so long a minority, and, with King James's consent, divided up the property among the members of the late Sir Henry's family. 1 When Phelim arrived at years of understanding he found much fault with this arrangement, and petitioned Charles I for a renewed title to all the lands which had been granted to his grandfather. This petition was unfortunately granted, for it put into Phelim's hands a power which he at once utilised for reactionary purposes, and which was directly responsible for one of the bloodiest chapters in history. After provision had been made for the above grants, the rest of Tyrone was divided up between 35 Undertakers, eleven Servitors and eight natives. 1 Before Perrot's county division scheme took effect, Co. Armagh had been a part of Tyrone, and was almost as sacred to the O'Neils as the latter county. The Crown's right of confiscation was therefore as clearly established in this county as in Tyrone. No county, however, fur- nishes clearer proofs that the main aim of the Plantation was not to stamp out the native element, but to bring about the downfall of the feudal system, which was held to be responsible for all the country's ills. Before the county was put between the hands of the Plantation Commissioners, old Art McBaron, who had been an intermittent rebel for thirty years, was granted one large proportion of 2,000 acres in Orior,* and Henry McShane was given a similar grant in the same barony. 4 The rest of Orior was settled by letters patent on Sir Oghie O'Hanlon in recognition of his faithful services to the late Queen, and of the wound in the foot which he had received in the Moyerie Pass. Tirlough McHenry, the Earl of Tyrone's half-brother, but his fairly consistent opponent throughout the long rebellion, received a special grant of 9,900 acres in the Fews, in respect of which we learn that he paid the King 40 a year and a hawk. 6 1 Cal. State Papers, James, 1612, 459. z Walter Harris's Hibernica. 3 Cal. State Papers, James, 925. * Ibid., James, 1610, 703. JWalter Harris's Hibernica ; see also Sir John Davies's Historical Tracts, 1612] 'FERMANAGH 58 The only British grantees in this country mentioned by name at the date of the 1610 Plantation are Sir Toby Caul- field and Sir Francis Roe. The first-named, who was the principal man in Ulster at the time, and the official rent- collector for the King (an office which we are told he carried out with very exact honesty), 1 was granted Charlemont, and the last-named Mountjoy ; but in neither case are we given the acreage which accompanied these two strong- holds. However, in view of the marked discrepancy between the acreage returned in the Survey and that actually allotted (the latter always exceeding the former) the absence of figures is not material. After the above dispositions had been made, twenty-eight proportions were allotted to Undertakers, six to Servitors, and eight to natives. Fermanagh though included among the six escheated counties was, technically speaking, never actually con- fiscated for Plantation purposes. According to the exist- ing law, the county had been legally forfeit to the Crown, for Hugh Maguire, the reigning chief, had been killed in open rebellion. The penalty, however, was not exacted. After Tyrone's submission the county was divided between Connor Roe Maguire, who had sided with the Government throughout his half-brother's rebellion, and Cuconnaught Maguire, who was a younger brother of Hugh, and a com- paratively unknown quantity. Cuconnaught, however, joined in the fresh intrigues of Tyrone and Tyrconnell and fled the country with the two Earls, whereupon Brian Maguire, the youngest but one of the family, was tem- porarily put in possession of the four baronies vacated by Cuconnaught. This happened in 1608, and therefore prior to the Plantation. When the Plantation came within the range of practical politics, it was at once apparent to Chichester that to divide an entire county between two natives of whom one had so far done nothing worthy of recognition would not have the effect of forwarding the objects of the Plantation. Brian's grant was there- fore reduced to 2,000 acres (profitable) in Coole, for which he paid a yearly rent of 21 6s. 8d.,* in which half-barony his brother Tirlough was also granted 500 acres. Connor Roe's original grant had included the baronies of Maghera- 1 Cal. State Papers, James, 1610, 546, a Ulster Journal of Archaeology. 54 PROGRESS OF THE PLANTATION [CHAP, vi Stephana, Clankelly, Tirkennedy and Knocknimy, the last two being reckoned as one barony. 1 Subsequently, however, at the suggestion of Chichester, Connor Roe gave up all except the barony of Magherastephana, in con- sideration of which concession he was allowed 200 a year for life, and 50 a year to his son Brian after his death. In view of the prominent part played by Brian's son Rory in the 1641 rebellion, this distribution has a peculiar in- terest. In addition to the above-named members of the Maguire family, Con McShane, the second of Shane O'Neil's sons, and a man who had all his life been landless and penni- less, was allotted 1,500 acres in the half-barony of Coole. 8 All the above-mentioned grants were by letters patent, and altogether outside of the Plantation allotments. The figures returned by the Plantation Commissioners are re- markable. According to these no proportions in Fer- managh were allotted to Undertakers, four only to Servi- tors, and seven to natives.* It is quite evident that these figures must have been returned prior to the relinquish- ment by Connor Roe and Brian of their surplus property, for in the report of Captain Alleyne, who worked with Pynnar in his 1618 and 1619 Survey, we get a return of no less than twenty-three Undertakers in Co. Fermanagh, none of whom, however, were to be found in the baronies of Magherastephana or Tirkennedy. 4 We are told that the county at the beginning of the seventeenth century was absolutely the poorest in Ireland, owing to the ex- treme exactions of the Maguires. 1 This brings us to the two remaining counties of Cavan and Coleraine, which have been left to the last on account of the doubts which must always exist as to the legitimacy of their confiscation. In Cavan the O'Reillys had always been good subjects immeasurably ahead of the other Ulster chiefs in civilisation and manners, nor could it be claimed that the part they had played in Tyrone's rebel- lion had at any time been so pronounced as to warrant their inclusion among the irreconcilables. The rather slender argument put forward by the Government was 1 See Pynnar's Survey. 4 Cal. State Papers, James, 1618, 221. * Carew MSS., Ulster Plantation. Chichester to Lords, September 12, 3 Walter Harris's Hibernica. 1600. 1612] CAVAN 55 that Edmund O'Reilly had assumed the chiefry of the county contrary to the wishes of the Government, and hao! rendered his county liable to forfeiture by being killed in actual rebellion. 1 " By a verdict returned by a very sufficient jury," Chichester explained, " it was found that all the lands of that county, either by actual rebellion or other treacherous practices or combinations of the natives of that county with the Earl of Tyrone in these late broils, are escheated to His Majesty and remain at his free dis- posal." It is obvious that, in this instance, the case for the Crown will not bear very close examination ; for, in default of any proof of crime against the reigning chief, the rebellious practices of the rural population are made the excuse for confiscation, which was in direct violation of the Government's own law. All that Chichester aimed at, however, in pushing through the doubtful verdict re- turned by his " sufficient jury," was a technical confisca- tion with a view to the more equitable distribution of the county among the many representatives of the O'Reilly family. It appeared that Sir John O'Reilly had got four out of the seven baronies in the county into his own hands, to the great discontent of the other O'Reillys. The chief complainant in this respect was young Mulmore O'Reilly, whose father had been killed at the battle of Yellowford, after having been nominated chief of Cavan by Sir William Russell, the Deputy. This young man was the chief gainer under Chichester's redistribution of the county, for, according to the Calendar of State Papers, he was allotted the whole barony of Cavan.* In Pynnar's Sur- vey, however, he is returned as owning 3,000 acres only. 1 The two statements are not as incompatible as might at first appear, for all the rest of the barony may well have been returned by Ridgeway and Bodley as unprofitable. The rest of the county we find divided up between a mul- titude of O'Reillys, McCabes, Magaurans and McEchies. The natives were not transplanted in Cavan as in the other five escheated counties, except from the neighbourhood of Belturbet, where a considerable settlement of the new British colonists was formed. In the other parts of the county Chichester's design was to attempt the experi- 1 Cal. State Papers, James, 1606, 820 and 823. a Ibid., James, 1608, 97. See Lodge's Desiderata Curiosa. 56 PROGRESS OF THE PLANTATION [CHAP, vi mcnt of reforming the natives by the force of example, and by contact with a higher civilisation. This intention is made very clear by his letters. " If His Majesty," he writes, " be pleased to send a warrant for the distribution of the lands of the Brenny (Cavan) among the natives thereof, with reservations of some proportions of land in every barony to be bestowed upon some Servitors in re- compense for their services, they conceived hope to bring the Brenny in a short time to the condition of an English county, which so far had been little better than a den of thieves." His intentions in this direction are made even more clear in his comments on the report of the commis- sioners. " In Cavan, Monaghan and Fermanagh they found the people very poor and unacquainted with the laws of good government, having been long subject to oppression and tyranny, as they shall ever be unless some men of more civility [i.e. civilisation] and understanding be seated among them, both to instruct and defend them ; for it is death to the great lords that their followers should understand more than brute beasts." The lightness of the original Plantation in this county is borne out by the figures. Out of twenty-six proportions available, six were allotted to Undertakers, six to Servi- tors, and fourteen to natives. In 1618, however, we find that the number of Undertakers had risen to fourteen, who absorbed 24,500 acres, 1 so that some readjustment of the original allotments must have occurred between these dates. The county of Coleraine has been left to the last, be- cause the case for the forfeiture of this county was un- questionably the weakest in the Government portfolio. The case for the forfeiture of Cavan was weak, but the forfeiture in that case was merely technical, and no hard- ship resulted to any. In Coleraine it was a very different matter. The best lands, in this case, were actually and literally confiscated, and heavily planted with British colonists, while the O'Cahans, O'Gormleys, O'Mullans, McCloskies and McGillinghams were concentrated about the foothills of the Sperrin Mountains, or other equally uncongenial and unprofitable districts. For such an arrangement to be permanent and undisturbed by cease- less counterplots, the removal of Sir Donnell O'Cahan was 1 Col. State Papers, James, 1618, p. 221. 1612] COLERAINE 57 all but essential. Such being the case, doubts naturally arise as to whether his complicity in O'Dogherty's rebel- lion had really been such as to justify his imprison- ment for life and the wholesale confiscation of his lands. O'Cahan's record, as handed down to us, is not distin- guished by any heinous crimes. Chichester, after de- scribing him in the first instance in more or less flattering terms as a man of his word, later on changes his tone and becomes far less eulogistic. One cannot but wonder whether the exigencies of the Plantation may not have been responsible for the change in his views. " Sir Donnell," he wrote, " is a barbarous, unworthy man, and not to be dealt with but by the strong hand." 1 Sir Oliver St. John, writing a fortnight later, is but little more flattering. " Sir Cahir O'Dogherty and Sir Donnell O'Cahan," he says, " are men that have pride enough to think themselves worthy of much more than the King has reason to do for them ; and yet no liberality will make them better." * Charges such as these, however, by no means constitute a criminal indictment, and, on O'Cahan's side, it must be urged that he had at one time been scurvily treated by Mount joy. The circumstances briefly stated were these. Sir Donnell had originally been of Tyrone's party. He had then changed sides and joined Docwra against his father-in-law. In return for these services to the Government he had been knighted, and had been guaranteed by Docwra independence in the future from the over-lordship of Tyrone. This promise had at the time been endorsed by Mountjoy in writing. 1 The latter, however, subsequently went back on his word, and after Tyrone's submission he re-established the late rebel in the over-lordship of Coleraine. O'Cahan's resentment at this breach of faith was only equalled by Docwra's indig- nation at the inexplicable repudiation of an act of justice which he himself had solemnly guaranteed. So deep was his disgust that he actually resigned his Governorship of Deny. O'Cahan's renewed vassalage to Tyrone, as it turned out, was not of long duration, for the Earl fled the country, and O'Cahan became once more independent, and consequently in better circumstances than his an- 1 Chichester to Privy Council, November 28, 1607. 2 Sir Oliver St. John to Salisbury, December 11, 1607. 3 Bagwell's Ireland under the Stuarts, 58 PROGRESS OF THE PLANTATION [CHAP, vi cestors in the past. He had, therefore, no possible grounds at the time of O'Dogherty's rebellion for identifying him- self with a movement the avowed subject of which was once more to bring Tyrone back and to re-establish Tyronian usages. However, it unfortunately fell out that, concurrently with the disappearance of the old grievance, a new one was created by the rapacity of Montgomery, Bishop of Derry. The validity of this grievance is frankly admitted by Chichester. " Assuredly," he wrote to Salisbury, " O'Cahan's first discontent grew from the Bishop demanding great quantities of land within the county, which he [O'Cahan] maintains never yielded but a chiefry to that see." l The fate of Sir Donnell O'Cahan himself has already been dealt with. Rightly or wrongly, he was convicted of complicity in O'Dogherty's rebellion, and, as a consequence, finished his days in the Tower, his lands being divided up among the London City Companies. The most important individual grantee in the county, apart from the Londoners, was Sir Thomas Phillips, who, by virtue of his past services, was assigned 3,000 acres around Limavady, where he built a village of 18 houses, 1 and 500 acres at Castle Toome. 1 Sir Thomas Staples had a grant at Moneymore, where he built a strong and hand- some Castle and a model village, with a paved street and a fresh-water conduit running down each side of the street. These two grantees were Servitors. The only Undertakers named in the commissioners' returns are the City Companies, of whom there were twelve. These practically absorbed the whole county. On July 1, 1609, the Lord Mayor of London was first given the option of leasing the county of Coleraine and the city of Derry for a term of years. The Lord Mayor referred the matter to the City Companies, each of whom deputed four of its members to serve on a committee to discuss the project. Opinion on the committee was much divided, and at first the opponents of the scheme were in a majority. Even- tually, however, after some months of debate and hesita- tion, the scheme found favour, and the terms of the agreement were signed and sealed. By the terms of this agreement, the City Companies bound themselves to spend 20,000 on their new possessions, and, in addition, 1 Chichester to Salisbury, February 17, 1608. 2 Pynnar's Survey. 3 Philadelphia Papers, vol. iv. p. 117. 1612] COLERAINE 59 to build 200 houses at Derry and 100 at Coleraine within two years. Glenconkein and Loughinshollin were to be niched from Co. Tyrone, 3,000 acres from Antrim for the Liberties of Coleraine, and 4,000 from Donegal for the Liberties of Derry. In addition, to the city of Derry and the county of Coleraine henceforth to be known as Co. Londonderry the terms of the lease ceded the fishing rights on the Foyle and Bann to the London Companies. The fishing on Lough Neagh was already Chichester's, but he agreed to lease it to the Londoners for 100 a year. 1 The stipulated 100 houses in Coleraine were built in the time specified and surrounded by a mud rampart, but the same cannot be said of the 200 houses which the Companies had undertaken to build in Derry. In 1622 we find that the city contained no more than 121 families ; it was, however, " surrounded by a good wall, the circuit whereof is 284 perches, and is 24 feet high and 6 feet thick." The process of colonisation in Co. Londonderry was not allowed to develop without one positive protest. Rory O'Cahan, the son of the unfortunate Sir Donnell doubtless chafing under a sense of family wrongs made a frantic but futile attempt to reverse the newly established order of things by an ill-prepared and feebly supported rebellion. In this enterprise he was joined by Brian Crossach O'Neil, the son of old Cormac McBaron. Brian's property lay at Augher in South Tyrone, and it does not appear that he had any direct interest in the salvage of the O'Cahan's country. There can be little doubt that the common bond of union between the two lay in the fact that both their fathers were at the time in the Tower. Apart from this common feature, there is no real analogy between the two cases. Sir Donnell O'Cahan as far as can be judged from the scanty evidence available was a hardly used man, and his imprisonment must always stand out as the one assailable spot in a scheme of social and industrial reform which was otherwise carried out with a decent observance of just dealing. Cormac McBaron's case was widely different. This brother of Tyrone had, from his earliest days, been a tur- 1 Gal. State Papers, James, 1622. Str afford to Secretary Coke, August 11, 1638. 60 PROGRESS OF THE PLANTATION [CHAP. VI bulent rebel, with many a deed of blood and treachery to his account. Captain Lee, who had a genuine admiration for Tyrone, had nothing but contempt for the brother, whom he described as " a man fit only for the gallows." Nevertheless, in spite of his evil records, he was freely par- doned by James on the submission of Tyrone, and, by order of the King, was restored to all his lands. Four years later, however, for his complicity in the plot the premature discovery of which caused Tyrone and Tyrconnell to fly the country, he was arrested and lodged in the Tower. 1 Even then his Castle at Augher was left hi the possession of his son Crossach, and his wife was granted a pension of 100 a year. Brian Crossach had, therefore, little cause for grievance outside of the fact that his reprehensible old father was in the Tower. On the strength of this supposed family wrong he joined himself to Rory O'Cahan in 1615 in a conspiracy which aimed at massacring all the new settlers, and so regaining possession of the old lands. The conspiracy was betrayed, the ringleaders arrested, and Rory and Brian, together with three or four others, were executed. These executions, and the additional confiscations which followed on them, contributed in some small degree to the simplification of the problem of plantation. By the time the Ulster Plantation had celebrated its sixteenth anni- versary it was pronounced a definite success. Its progress is faithfully pictured in Pynnar's Survey, which neither glosses over shortcomings nor exaggerates the importance of work done. This Survey was ordered to be made for the information of the King, who was anxious for a faithful and accurate report as to the way in which the various allottees were fulfilling the terms of their engagement. In 1618 Captain Nicholas Pynnar, assisted by Captain Alleyne, took up the work and carried it through with a patience and thoroughness which, for those days, was remarkable. It is through this Survey that we first get the metamor- phosed Province in true perspective. We are shown a land the surface of which is being transfigured as though by magic stone houses built, streets paved, windmills here, watermills there, bogs drained and waste places re- claimed and cultivated. Many of the Undertakers, the report says, had brought over as many as thirty British families, who were all now comfortably housed and labour- 1 Col. State Papers, James, 1613, 732. 1620] THE CASE OF THE BROWNLOWS 61 ing to make the land profitable. The Scotch settlers, we are told, were more industrious with the plough than the English. A typical and instructive case is that of Mr. William Brownlow. This Undertaker and his son John had respec- tively 1,000 and 1,500 acres at Dowcoran and Ballynemony in Co. Armagh. In evident determination to lose no time in building, they had brought over from England six carpenters, one mason, six labourers, one tailor, one free- holder and six tenants. 1 The staff was clearly well selected, and carried out its work with remarkable efficiency. Eight years only had elapsed since the arrival of the Brownlows when Pynnar made his Survey. " William Brownlow," he reported, " hath in all 2,500 acres. At Ballynemony there is a strong stone house with a good island, and at Dowcoran a very fair house of stone and brick. He hath made a very fair town of forty-two houses, all of which are in- habited with English families, and the streets all paved clean throughout, also two watermills and a windmill for corn." In all Pynnar found fifty-seven families on the property, of whom not one was Irish. The case of the Brownlows is typical only of the best and most enthusiastic class of Undertaker. In many cases Pynnar found that no Castle or cottages had been built, and that the property had simply been relet for grazing. In such cases, immediate forfeiture followed on the report, and the neglected lands were re-allotted to new and more conscientious Undertakers. We are told that the influx of fresh colonists that followed on the receipt of Pynnar's Survey and report continued up till 1622. 1 Pynnar's Survey, Carew MSS. CHAPTER VII GROWTH OF THE RACIAL PROBLEM THE success of the great Ulster Plantation was commemo- rated by the ennoblement of the principal men associated with the movement. In 1613 Sir Arthur Chichester was created Lord Chichester, and shortly afterwards Sir Toby Caulfield became Lord Caulfield of Charlemont ; Sir Foulke Conway was created Lord Conway and Killultagh, and Sir James Hamilton became Lord Clandeboye. Sir Randal McDonnell was created Viscount Dunluce in 1618, and afterwards Earl of Antrim. Hugh Magennis became Lord Iveagh, and Sir Thomas Cromwell Lord Lecale. The Ulster Plantation had now become an accomplished fact. The apparently impossible had been achieved, and the Province thickly colonised with British families of the right stamp. The picture drawn by Pynnar in his Survey is, on the whole, a pleasing one. It tells of a neglected country gradually putting on the garb of civilisation and prosperity ; and yet, in the beauty of the picture, there was one flaw, small in itself as yet, but brimful of grim possibilities for the future. While the colonists were con- verting the barren plains of Ulster into corn-fields and orchards, the native Irish, from the bleak, unprofitable mountains to which they had been condemned under the scheme, looked down on the industrious toilers below with an ever-growing hatred in their hearts. The neglected virgin soil grew rich under the vigorous treatment to which it was subjected, and, to the natives, these newly discovered riches seemed a stolen part of their inheritance. It is not to be supposed, nor does the evidence suggest, that this feeling arose spontaneously, or that it was the immediate outcome of the changed conditions. The immediate out- come would appear to have been a feeling of relief at the disappearance of the old oppressive feudalism. This feeling was but short-lived; there were too many interested in its suppression. The dispossessed aristocracy and the dis- 1620] INCREASE OF THE NATIVE POPULATION 68 endowed priests were ever at work with whispered words of sedition, and, as the congestion of the reservations began to increase, the whispered words took hold. The danger of the position was unfortunately aggravated by the un- accustomed peace which had settled on the country. For centuries past a race of a reckless prolificacy, which was deliberately encouraged by the clerics as a means to an end, had been kept within numerical bounds by inter- tribal raids, massacres, burnings and artificially produced famines. Under the newly established order of society such death-dealing enterprises were no longer possible. O'Donnell could no longer raid and burn and kill in O'NeiPs country, and O'Neil retaliate in like fashion on O'Donnell. O'Neil and O'Donnell, from time immemorial the prime disturbers of peace in Ulster, were no more. Peace and security reigned where in old days butchery and pillage had held unchallenged sway. As a result the Celtic natives whose custom was to marry before they had done grow- ing increased and multiplied with such astonishing free- dom that the mountain districts to which they had been relegated soon became incapable of sustaining them. Holdings were divided and subdivided again and again, till in the end they assumed the patchwork appearance so familiar to the eye to-day. Poverty and hunger began to make themselves felt where, in the first days of the Plan- tation, there had been abundance for all. While the natives grew individually poorer as their numbers increased, so the colonists grew richer as they gradually developed the productiveness of the lowlands. Every year the gap be- tween the possessed and the dispossessed grew more marked, and, as it grew more marked, jealousy and hatred took root in the breasts of the old population. It is all but inconceivable that a man such as Chichester should not have foreseen this inevitable complication of the original problem. Carew foresaw it nearly thirty years before the tragedy of 1641. " If the King of Spain were to land 10,000 men in Ireland," he wrote in 1612, when the new colonists had become firmly established on their lands, " all the settlers would be at once massacred, which is not difficult to execute in a moment, by reason they are dis- persed, and the native swords will be in their throats in every part of the realm, like the Sicilian Vespers." Chichester made no such ominous prophecies, but it can 6 64 GROWTH OF THE RACIAL PROBLEM [CHAP, viz hardly be doubted that he did foresee the possibility of a native rising and massacre, but preferred leaving the deluge to be stemmed by those who should come after. A peculiar and unfortunate feature in the case was that, the richer the country, the harder was the case of the local natives, for there was less unprofitable land on which to accommodate them. In the poorer districts, such as West Donegal, there was little disturbance of the old inhabitants, for the Undertakers refused the boggy and heathery lands offered them* The Boyles and the McSweeneys remained where they had always been, nor thanks to the 're- peated changes in the ownership of Inishowen were the O'Doghertys greatly disturbed. Across the water, however, in Co. Londonderry, it was far otherwise. Here the new colonists monopolised the rich lands, while the ancient population with little agricultural skill or enterprise was forced for a subsistence to land which would grudgingly respond to the most improved methods. So, too, in Co. Tyrone. Wherever the heathery mountains cropped up from the rolling plains, there would be found the Devines, O'Quinns, O'Hagans, Devlins and Donnellys, living at first in reasonable sufficiency, but gradually in- clining towards poverty as their numbers became a burden too great for the soil to carry. A lamentable feature of the case was that, even where the natives were given grants of the rich lowlands, they neglected to imitate the agricultural energy of the colonists, and were content to live in the old hand-to-mouth fashion, without making the best of the land. Pynnar reported in 1618 that Tirlough Me Art (Tirlough Luineach's grandson) " hath 4,000 acres at Dungannon. Upon this he has made a piece of a bawn which is five feet high and has been so a long time. He has made no estate to his tenants, and all do plough after the Irish fashion," i.e. by the tail. As a matter of fact, Tirlough McArt had only 3,000 acres (profitable), but his three brothers each had 500 acres adjoining, so that the family totalled 4,500 acres. If the upper classes among the native Irish had shown more aptitude for absorbing new ideas the tendency to push them off the richer lands would have been less justifi- able. The habits of centuries, however, are not so easily eradicated. The Irish territorial chiefs passively refused to become landowners after the English fashion, i.e. to 1620] DEATH OF CHICHESTER 65 build houses, drain fields, plough waste lands, erect mills, etc., and reap the fruits of their labour and their outlay in the enhanced productiveness of the land. Even after the Plantation, in cases where they were allotted profitable lands, they adhered to their old gavelkind habits, scorning industry as unworthy of their dignity, and chafing at the fixed boundaries to the lands over which they were allowed to exercise their old rights of taxation. This reactionary attitude did not tend to encourage the free creation of native Irish landowners, as experience proved that, where the trial was made, neither they nor those under them contributed in any way to that betterment of the country which was aimed at. The tendency, therefore, to relegate them to the bogs and mountains, where reclamation was impossible, or at any rate beset with difficulties, became more and more widespread, and was to a certain extent justified by the argument that good lands were thrown away on those who neither toiled nor spun. In Co. Armagh there was less disturbance of the old landowners, owing to the number of grants under patents made to natives in that county by Chichester prior to the Plantation. We learn that there were fifty native grantees in the barony of Orior alone. These, however, were pre- sumably of humble rank ; their grants were small, and must not be confounded with the " proportions " of profit- able land which were, in many cases, assigned to the native aristocracy. In 1614- Arthur, Lord Chichester, was replaced in the government of Ireland by Sir Oliver St. John. Chichester, at the time he retired, had been the royal representative in Ireland for eleven years, a term of office unapproached in the case of any previous Deputy. On his retirement he withdrew for a time to his property in Antrim, and finally died in London on February 19, 1624. He was buried at Carrickfergus. Arthur Chichester was unquestionably one of the greatest men that Ireland has seen. His name is much vilified by native Irish writers, and in point of unpopularity he comes but a very short distance behind Cromwell. Like Crom- well, too, he was hated more for his good qualities than for his bad ones. He unquestionably had many points in common with the great Commonwealth leader. He was a ruthless foe in warfare, and a strikingly just and generous 66 GROWTH OF THE RACIAL PROBLEM [CHAP, vii ruler when the sword was once sheathed. He was rigidly honest, and, though he enormously increased the King's revenues from Ireland, he made no attempt to divert any of the increment into his own pocket. He had a grand contempt for the petty bribes too often associated with Ministers of meaner parts; but, on the other hand, he grasped eagerly at any chance which offered of acquiring for himself large tracts of land. In 1609 he obtained a grant of Inishowen and of the fishing on Lough Neagh. In the following year, under the Plantation scheme, he was allotted Dungannon Castle and 1,300 acres round, in his capacity as a Servitor, and in 1621 he was given a grant of Belfast town and precincts. 1 It can hardly be said that these grants were out of proportion to the length of his service as Deputy, or to the remarkable results achieved. That these results were remarkable, even his bitterest enemies must admit. In the case of the Ulster Plantation he was called upon to deal with problems of extraordinary complexity, and, though many of the means which he used are open to criticism, it cannot be denied that the ends achieved were of lasting benefit to the country. His methods of warfare, from the strictly humanitarian point of view, were repulsive, and though the effects of the famine which he occasioned have been enormously ex- aggerated by historians, all too eager to generalise from one harrowing incident related by Fynes Moryson, there can be no question but that he intended the effects to be far more general than actually was the case. Men, how- ever, must be judged by the standard of their times. The times were brutal. The methods adopted by Chichester were a recognised branch of warfare, and were universally employed all over Europe ; nor can it be claimed that even in the twentieth century the same ends are not aimed at by more scientific, but none the less brutal, means. To the careful student of Irish national literature it soon becomes clear that the historical unpopularity of Chichester and Cromwell is due in neither case to the brutality of their acts which constituted no new depar- ture from recognised methods but because they stand out as the two men on whom can be definitely pinned the crime of having planted in the midst of the Irish people a permanent garrison of another race and another religion. 1 McSkimmin's History of Carrickfergus. 1638] GROWTH OF THE COLONISTS 67 The eighteen years which elapsed between the retirement of Chichester and the appointment of Thomas Wentworth, better known as Lord Strafford, were uneventful years in Ulster. Though many might cavil at the methods employed in establishing the Plantation, none could deny that as its result the province advanced in prosperity with giant strides. Pynnar reported in 1618 that there were 1,974 British families in the six escheated counties, among whom were 6,215 adult men. 1 The following year he estimated 8,000 adult men in the six counties. 8 Ten years later a census return estimated the number of adult British in the whole of Ulster at 13,092. Ten years later, again, in 1638, Strafford gave it as his opinion that there were 100,000 Scots in Ulster, but in this case the estimate was not based on any official census, and was probably a deliberate over-statement. Still, the increase in the colonial element was unquestionably remarkable. The difficulties of luring English and Scotch families into Ulster had mainly arisen in the earlier stages of the Plantation. As soon as the first importations had become fairly established in apparent security, all the hesitancy of intending immigrants was overcome, and the Scotch Presbyterians swarmed over to a country where they hoped to be immune from the persecution and dangers which, at the time, threatened their religion in Scotland. James I had in the earliest days of the Plantation passed a law against the inter- marriage of British settlers with the natives, and, to minimise the danger of any infringement of this law, the Undertakers and Servitors were bound by their contracts to import and provide accommodation for entire families of British for labour purposes on their lands. It had been proved by the experience of nearly four centuries that, in cases where intermarriage did take place, the British invariably adopted the Irish religion, and drifted into the gipsy ways of life peculiar to the traditions of the country. James had the understanding to realise that, unless this tendency was checked with an iron hand, the entire object of the Ulster Plantation would be defeated. In the case of the Scotch Presbyterians the danger did not exist, for between them and those of the Roman Catholic religion there was an unbridgeable gulf. In the i Pynnar's Survey, Carew MSS. * Gal. State Papers, James, 1619, 921. 68 GROWTH OF THE RACIAL PROBLEM [CHAP, vii case of the English Episcopalians, the danger was not so unsubstantial, but, with each influx of fresh British families, it became more and more remote, as opportunities increased for alliances of those with their own race and religion. Religion soon became the infallible hall-mark of race, for neither the Episcopalian nor the Presbyterian religion long survived a cross with the native blood. Under the necessity for preserving race distinctions the ordinary class distinc- tions were, in many cases, waived. The daughter of Sir William Cole married a tanner, 1 and Sir Francis Hamilton's daughter married a carpenter * ; nor does it appear that, at the time, such alliances were considered as being in any way derogatory. 1 Information of Sir Frederic Hamilton. * Clogy's Life of Bedell. CHAPTER VIII THE FINANCES OF THE STUARTS QUEEN ELIZABETH had been thrifty almost to a fault ; she underpaid her officials, and lived largely on the hospi- tality of her nobles. She has even been accused of being niggardly and mean, and it is certain that the entertain- ments which she provided were not on the same scale as those of her father. At the same time her parsimony was not without its virtuous side. Under the Tudors, the funds of the Crown Treasury were mainly provided by Parlia- mentary subsidies, supplemented by arbitrary impositions and many petty tricks of finance, which were no more creditable than they were dignified. Lavish expenditure on the pomp and pageantry of royalty had to be paid for, in the end, by the spectators, for taxation was regulated by expenditure, and not expenditure by taxation. The gradual expansion of a partially developed kingdom cannot fail to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in the administration expenses, but by no means does it follow that the corresponding increase in taxation is met with equanimity. Where taxation is imposed by a repre- sentative Government the country yields with some show of cheerfulness to the inevitable. Where it is imposed capriciously, and at the arbitrary discretion of a King or Queen, the response is not so cordial. In spite of her economy, Elizabeth's annual expenditure had gradually risen till the recognised channels of revenue were barely sufficient to meet it. Only by the exercise of a rigid economy was she able to avoid recourse to new and ques- tionable impositions. With the accession of James I the studied restraint which had characterised the last reign was succeeded by a sudden and disastrous prodigality. Like many another who has been reared among penurious surroundings, James fell a victim to the sudden change to affluence. The revenues of his predecessor seemed to him inexhaustible. He himself had few expensive tastes, but 70 THE FINANCES OF THE STUARTS [CHAP.VIII he delighted in pandering to the follies and extravagances of others. Intellectual and sagacious as the Scotch King was in matters of statecraft, he was a mere fool in the handling of his own affairs. With the death of Cecil in 1612, the last remaining check on his foolish propensities was removed. Frivolous, empty-headed upstarts took the place of the Lord Treasurer. The inane ostentation of Somerset was only eclipsed by that of Buckingham. Before James had been twelve years on the throne the Treasury debt amounted to 700,000. To meet the yearly deficit extraordinary measures were resorted to. Obscure royal prerogatives, that had lain dormant for many reigns, were brought to light and legalised as engines of extortion. The new impositions were met, but they were met without enthusiasm. They were succeeded by others even more ingenious and more fantastical. In spite, however, of all these questionable money-raising devices, the Treasury debt continued to grow, and, pari passu with its growth, grew the general discontent. It was claimed that the money voted was wasted and misapplied ; that the King's advisers were incompetent, and in some cases worse than incompetent, The Palatinate Army alone cost 700,000 a year, and did nothing. 1 The public temper found ex- pression in the plain speaking of its parliamentary repre- sentatives. The King retaliated by dissolving Parliament and imprisoning the loudest speakers. Parliament offered to collect the King's revenues in the shape of legalised subsidies if he would abandon the practice of his irregular impositions. James scouted the offer as aiming at the cur- tailment of his royal prerogatives, and, with a view to showing his independence of Parliament, devised some further and still more questionable methods of extracting money direct from his subjects. The country remained quiet and outwardly loyal, but below the surface were the elements of revolution, which were none the less dangerous because they were controlled and orderly. Behind the Puritan movement in the south, and the kindred Covenant- ing movement in the north, was a firm resolve that the absolutism of monarchy must pass away for ever. This resolve did not at the first frame itself in definite words. It was partially screened behind an onslaught on the Bishops and their religious supremacy ; but James was 1 Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 2. 1625] CHARLES I'S MONEY TROUBLES 71 too shrewd to deceive himself as to the ultimate aim of this attack. " No Bishops, no King," was his summing up of the situation. In 1625 the King died, and Charles succeeded to a legacy of debt and trouble. James had died owing, among other debts, 120,000 to the City of London, 150,000 on account of the Palatinate Army, and 40,000 for his wardrobe. His son did not improve matters by spending 42,000 on his father's funeral. 1 From the very first he gave evidence of a determination to follow rigidly in his father's footsteps. He had neither the intellect nor the reasoning capacity of James, but excelled him in obstinacy and egoism. Nothing could shake his belief in the divine right of kings to prescribe for the religious needs of the country, or in the correspond- ing obligation which lay on the country to fill the royal exchequer as required. The money-raising tricks which had made his father's reign so odious were expanded and added to. Peerages, knighthoods, judgeships, and offices of every kind were sold broadcast, in many cases to the unworthy and inefficient. The Parliament viewed the prospect ahead with sullen gloom. It complained that, whereas in Eliza- beth's reign honours were bestowed in return for sterling merit or services of some kind rendered to the country, under the Stuarts they were sold to fools and mounte- banks. The highest and most responsible positions were in the hands of frivolous adventurers whose only recom- mendation lay in their personal attractions. Charles's own tastes were no less simple than those of his father. In morals he could compare favourably with most monarchs, but, like James, he entrusted the control of the State to foolish spendthrifts lacking both mental balance and capacity. " False informers and misguiders of good kings," Sir Edward Coke remarked sententiously, " are much more perilous than if princes themselves were evil." * This was an aphorism the truth of which the country was fast learning by sad experience. The root of the whole evil was popularly supposed to lie in the appointment of Buckingham. This attractive profligate took command of the new King from the first. His futile expeditions to Rochelle, coming on the top of the jejune Spanish and Austrian campaigns, increased the royal embarrassments 1 Charles I, speech at Oxford, August 4, 1625. 1 Rushworth, vol. i. p. 496. 72 THE FINANCES OF THE STUARTS [CHAP, vm and did nothing to increase the King's popularity with the country. When Buckingham fell to Felton's dagger a sigh of relief went up from high and low alike. Weston, his successor, did his best to restore the balance of things, but the State corruption was too widespread and too deep- seated for his powers. In 1630 the Treasury debt had reached the sum of 1,600,000. Five years later Weston died, and, from that time on, Laud's was the hand that controlled the King's financial policy. The influence of the Archbishop proved literally fatal to Charles. Day by day the gap widened between the King and his Puritan Parliament. In the north the Covenanting Scots, in an ecstatic revivalist mood, came out in open revolt against the domination of the Bishops. On March 1st, 1638, the Covenant was signed at Edinburgh, and Charles knew that he was faced with war. The sympathies of the English people in this crisis were largely with the Scots. Puritans and Presbyterians were partners in the struggle of a newly enlightened people against a religious and administrative tyranny. Both Puritans and Presbyterians, in the first ardour of their revolt, made themselves ridiculous, and justly unpopular, by an affected advertisement of sanctimony, which will for ever be associated with their movement. The creed of the earlier enthusiasts was Mosaical rather than Chris- tian, and, as such, cruel and uncompromising ; but its sincerity made it formidable, and at the same time gave it a touch of sublimity. In 1640 the threatened war took definite shape. The Scots, under Leslie, marched south and made themselves masters of the north of England with hardly a blow struck to check their progress. At Newburn- on-Tyne Lord Conway, with 4,500 men, made an effort to bar Leslie's way, but he was ignominiously defeated, his troops throwing down their arms and making little attempt to fight. 1 The Scots, in their advance, behaved with so marked a courtesy and moderation as to make it clear to all men that they were in arms for a principle and not for vulgar conquest. No violence was offered to any, no plunder was seized or personal property destroyed. Charles, however, had to admit defeat. In the spring of 1641 he went to Scotland, voluntarily yielded to every demand of the Assembly, attended Presbyterian worship, and showered 1 Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 1234. 1638] CHARLES AND ULSTER 78 honours on Argyle, the Covenanting leader. Even at the very moment when he was so engaged the King was secretly intriguing with the Earl of Antrim to bring over an army from Ireland, which, in co-operation with Montrose and the Scottish Highlanders of the west, were to fall upon the Earl of Argyle and his Covenanters and clear them off the face of the earth. In the spoliation of his English subjects James I had been every whit as apt as his son. It may be that in the ingenuity of his devices Charles excelled his father, but not in his predatory aims. In the matter of dealings with Ulster, however, there was a very marked contrast between the policy of the father and of the son. James looked upon himself, and not without reason, as the father of the Ulster Plantation, and his rapacity stopped short at the spoliation of his own child. The rents of the Londoners, it is true, had been doubled in 1624 on the grounds which were in- contestable that they had acquired far more land than appeared in the returns, but the individual Undertakers and Servitors were gently dealt with. All through the King's correspondence with Chichester, and later on with Grandison and Falkland, his solicitude for the welfare of the young settlement in Ulster is the predominating note. Any measure or move which retarded its progress was eyed with jealousy. With Charles, however, there was no such weak sentiment. To him the Ulster colony merely repre- sented a new field for the exercise of his financial talents. The colonists had admittedly prospered in the land of their adoption, and were therefore, he argued, in a position to contribute handsomely to the royal exchequer. Collec- tively the settlers were abhorrent to him on account of their strong Presbyterian leanings, and it was therefore without a shadow of compunction that he braced himself to the task of robbing them of the fruits of their labours. Nor were the new settlers the only sufferers. The " old English " and the natives were equally victimised. Old titles were pried into, artificial flaws discovered, and ex- tortionate fines exacted for the grant of a fresh patent. The insecurity of tenure, consequent upon a policy which recognised no law but its own caprice, filled all alike with uneasiness. None knew when he was safe. Sales or trans- fers of property became impossible, for no man's title was good. 74 THE FINANCES OF THE STUARTS [CHAP, vm Two cases which attracted a good deal of attention were those of Sir Archibald Acheson and Sir John Hume, both Fermanagh Servitors. On the ground that they had failed to carry out the terms of the Plantation contracts, their lands were declared forfeit to the Crown. In vain they offered to pay double rents and a fine for the renewal of their grants. The estates were put up to auction, and the two unhappy Servitors, in order to resume possession of their own, were forced to bid up to an inflated rent calculated on their own improvements. In much alarm at this and similar cases, the country in 1628 offered the King a subsidy of 120,000, payable in twelve quarterly instalments of 10,000, if he in return would grant them certain privileges or concessions, which they were pleased to style " Graces." Of these there were no less than fifty-one in the first list. Most of them were of very parochial interest, but two or three there were whose importance to the new landed interest in Ireland could hardly be exaggerated. Among such was the twenty-sixth on the list, which was brought into being by the arbitrary acts above referred to, and which petitioned that the Undertakers should be given a clear title to their estates in perpetuity at double the existing rents and on their payment of a fine to the Crown of 30 per 1,000 acres. These payments were to be in addition to the subsidy. Charles closed eagerly with the offer. The rents were doubled, the fines paid, and arrange- ments made for raising the subsidy. In return for these indications of good-will on the subjects' side, Falkland, in the King's name, undertook to call a Parliament as soon as practicable, to pass the Acts necessary to place the long list of Graces on the Statute-book. The promised Parlia- ment was not called, and the majority of the Graces re- mained in the form of waiting petitions. Fresh grants were, however, issued to all the Undertakers on their making the agreed payments. 1 In spite of Falkland's failure to call a Parliament, the subsidies continued to be paid, the only departure from the original programme being that the final quarterly instalments were reduced from 10,000 to 5,000, so that the full payment extended over a longer period than was originally planned. In the meanwhile Falkland, who had succeeded in making himself universally unpopular, was 1 Case of Ulster Undertakers, Col. State Papers, April 16. 1641. 1632] SIR THOMAS WENTWORTH 75 recalled, and Loftus and the Earl of Cork jointly assumed the reins of government, pending the arrival of the new Lord Deputy, Sir Thomas Wentworth. Wentworth was appointed on January 12, 1632, but he was not able to cross to Ireland until the year following. While still in England he was able to arrange for a sup- plementary subsidy of 20,000. This additional tax was agreed to without demur, but the next act of the new Lord Deputy gave rise to a storm of protest. In spite of the King's undertaking that, if a specified fine were paid, the Undertakers should be established in perpetuity on their lands at a rent of 10 13s. 4>d. per 1,000 acres (i.e. double the original rent), Wentworth, within four years of this promise, raised the rents by a further 3 185. 4-d. This brought the rents of the Undertakers' lands up to 14 lls. 8d. per 1,000 acres. The Servitors, whose rents had started at 8 6s. 8d., had so far not been touched, except in individual cases such as those of Hume and Acheson where they were found to have failed to strictly carry out their side of the bargain. Their rents were now, with a jerk, brought up to the same level as those of the Undertakers, and many of the natives, though not all, were treated in the same way. 1 Charles's only excuse was that the lands could well afford to pay the rents demanded. His action, in if act, marks the inauguration of the pernicious system of raising rents on the tenants' improvements. It can readily be understood that, with such a policy, launched before the new Deputy had even set foot in Ireland, his advent was awaited by all sections of the public with the deepest misgivings. Wentworth came over hating the Ulster Presbyterians for political reasons, and prejudiced against the natives by the adverse criticism of his correspondents in Ireland.* He reached Ireland on July 23, 1633. Whatever may have been his private views, his public policy at the moment was to court the favour of the Roman Catholic natives with a view to utilising them against the Puritan menace which was already threatening both him and his master, and which was destined in the end to overwhelm them both. Money, however, was the first consideration, and this had to be 1 Case of Ulster Undertakers. 8 See Sir Vincent Gockin to Wentworth, middle of 1633. Addenda, Cal. State Papers. 76 THE FINANCES OF THE STUARTS [CHAP, vm raised from all alike. No sooner had Wentworth landed in Ireland than he called for six new subsidies. No objec- tions were raised to this extravagant demand by the country's representatives, provided the subsidies were voted by a Parliament which would simultaneously deal with the question of the Graces. To this Wentworth agreed, and on July 14, 1634, a Parliament was convened. Went- worth, in an admirable but imperious speech, explained that the urgent needs of the State must have the first call on the time of the House, and that after the subsidies had been voted the question of the Graces should be promptly dealt with. At this the members not unnaturally murmured, and finally proved so refractory that Wentworth had to bring pressure to bear by the threat that, if the subsidies were not forthcoming, he would be obliged to enforce the shilling- a-week statutory fine which was by law recoverable from all recusants who failed to attend church. This was a. menace which threatened the Presbyterians no less than it did the Roman Catholics. The Protestant members of all denominations, added to the Government officials, were still in a majority of eight, and the threat had its desired effect. Six subsidies of 45,000 each were voted, the whole sum to be paid within four years. As soon as Wentworth' had got what he wanted, Parliament was prorogued on August 2. On November 4 it reassembled for a short session, but the question of the Graces was again shelved.. In the following year, however, there were two short sessions, during which the greater number of these con- cessions were passed. This tardy act of honour and justice was marred by the deliberate omission of the two particular Graces to which more importance was attached than to all the rest of the long category of trivial petitions. These two much-desired measures were : 1. That no title to land should be questioned where the owner had been in peace- able possession for sixty years. 2. That enquiry into the good title of land should not go back beyond the rights of the last owner. 1 On these two long-promised concessions public anxiety became henceforth focussed, but, as these were the very two which would have restricted the King's power to fine and confiscate as he would, the reiterated petitions of the 1 Hickson's Ireland in the Seventeenth Century. 1635] CHARLES AND THE LONDON COMPANIES 77 landowners, both Anglo-Irish and native, were productive of nothing more substantial than continual promises, which, in the end, bore no fruit. As though to emphasise his reluctance to curtail in any way his power of imposing fines as an alternative to confiscation, the King now made an unexpected onslaught on the position of the London Companies; He brought a suit against them for mis- representation, and for combining to defraud him of his rents. His case was that, whereas they were returned as owning only 37,000 acres, in reality they owned 250,000 ; and that the Treasury had therefore been defrauded of the difference for twenty-five years past. This discovery was made by Wentworth, and elicited much gratitude from the King. " I can assure you," Secretary Coke wrote to the Deputy, " that the King is pleased with your discovery of the gross abuse in the quantity of land gained in the admeasurement." 1 A very partial Court, appointed to adjudicate the question in May 1635, found that the King was entitled to a fine of 85,000. This was generously reduced to 70,000, which was to be paid off in four and a half years. Bramhall, Bishop of Derry, was appointed Receiver of all the Companies' revenues till the fine was paid. 2 As a matter of fact, it was never paid. The Lon- doners, after many negotiations and much correspondence, finally made a composition with the King by a payment of a fine of 12,000 and the surrender of their patents. 1 This was merely a method of extending the original fine over a term of years. A commission was issued to Sir Ralph Whitfield and Sir Thomas Fotherly to accept the surrender of all the manors named in the City grants, and to relet them to fresh applicants. The fresh applicants were as a matter of fact the original grantees, whom the King was graciously pleased to reinstate in their lands, the natives at doubled rents and the Protestant colonists at trebled rents. 4 The payment of the six subsidies voted covered a period of five years instead of the four years originally prescribed, and in March 1640 Wentworth recently created Earl of Strafford and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland called a new 1 Addenda, Gal. State Papers. 2 Reid's History of the Presbyterian Church. 3 Sir Thomas Phillips to the King, May 1635. * Memo, of the Irish Parliament on the Londonderry question, Addenda, Cal. State Papers, 1640. 78 THE FINANCES OF THE STUARTS [CHAP, viii Parliament for the purpose of voting six new subsidies; Strafford himself was too ill with gout to be able to attend the session in person, but the Council, under his direction, dwelt with telling effect on the urgent necessity which existed for the subsidies being voted, in order to furnish the King with means to carry on his war against the Covenanters. In this Parliament the Roman Catholics were in a slight majority, and were in natural sympathy with the objects of a war which aimed at checking the alarming growth of the Puritan movement. The Protestant minority was cajoled into conformity by the stale promise that the outstanding Graces would be conceded ; but not even then would the Parliament commit itself to more than four subsidies, 1 the members being wisely determined to wait and see what the effect of these four was against the Puritan menace, before committing themselves to the last two. Such was the position of affairs when, on April 4, Strafford left Ireland, never as events proved to return. Wandesford was appointed his Deputy in Ireland, but survived his appointment but a few weeks, after which Sir William Parsons and Lord Dillon were appointed Lords Justices, the latter being almost at once replaced by Sir John Borlase. While these quick changes were being registered in Ireland, even more startling developments had taken place in England. Strafford had lost his head within five weeks of his return to England. Laud was in the Tower, and Charles and his Puritan Parliament were pre- paring for war. Parsons and Borlase were strict Parlia- mentarians, and their views on the question of subsidies, the main purpose of which was to finance the King in his struggle against Parliament, were very wide of those entertained by Strafford. One subsidy had been paid, but, before the others followed, a respectful but firm demand was made for the grant of the long-withheld Graces. This demand produced from the King the follow- ing letter, written to the Lords Justices on April 3, 1641 : " The Lords and Commons of Ireland ask us for the fulfil- ment of certain Graces promised them in 1628. We grant 1 The first of these subsidies was paid in full. The second and third produced conjointly 23,000, and the fourth was never paid on account of the rebellion. 1641] THE LORDS JUSTICES AND THE KING 79 their request and order you to the end of their execution to send over the following Bills for our assent." Then followed a schedule of five Bills, one of which dealt satis- factorily with the burning question of the non-disturbance of landed proprietors of over sixty years' standing. 1 This letter from the King crossed one from the Lords Justices to Vane, in which was set forth the hard case of the upper classes in Ireland, on whom alone the burden of the subsidies fell, and practically insisting on the redress of certain grievances, if any more subsidies were to be forthcoming. " The incidence of taxation on the nobility,'* they said, " is not, we think, much heavier than it was in the time of Lord Chichester's Government, although there has been a rise in agricultural values since that time. The yield of the tax is now much heavier than it was at the earlier date, owing to the increase in the number of noble- men. At both times the nobility were taxed very highly. The Lords now wish to pay 2 per cent, of the annual value of their lands, and the King has given in on this point. We dare not, in view of the present financial needs of the country, suggest the levelling down of the subsidy of the Peers to the rate paid by the Commons. Our conclusion is that, on any part of the three subsequent subsidies still unpaid, there should be an abatement of 25 per cent., provided this be not considered as a precedent. We hope for instructions, in the absence of which no money can be collected." 8 The last sentence is so defiant as to show that the shadow of Strafford had passed for ever from the land, and that, to those who reigned in his place, the suppression of the Covenanters appeared less important than the conservation of Irish resources. With a view to bringing matters to a head, a committee of the Irish Parliament was sent over to Whitehall with a long list of grievances, which touched all grades of society, from the noble to the peasant. Charles studied these for some weeks, and, on July 16, made the following declaration : " The King, having several times heard the committee of the Irish Parliament, and being ready to grant their petition as far as could well stand with the services of His Majesty and the present constitution of that kingdom, or with the nature of the things desired by them, has this 1 King to Lords Justices, April 3, 1641. Lords Justices to Vane, April 10, 1641. 80 THE FINANCES OF THE STUARTS [CHAP, vm day ordered that Sir Dudley Carleton collect and write out the grievances and the King's answers thereto, and enter both in the register of the Acts of the Council." Attached to the letter was a list of thirty-seven distinct grievances, with the King's comments appended. The majority dealt with petty matters of Inland Revenue and Excise, which have little permanent interest. One brought up the old question of the Graces. " The Graces," it said, " mentioned in the former remonstrance should be exe- cuted " ; to which the King ever procrastinating and undecided replied : "A Bill to be sent over as Poynings Act requires on this point." The most instructive of the thirty-seven petitions, and one that speaks eloquently of the general hatred that Straff ord had left behind him, runs as follows : " That the part of the Preamble to the Subsidy Act referring to the Earl of Straff ord in flattering terms be repealed." The words in question, to which the Irish representatives took exception, ran as follows : " And particularly in providing and placing over us so just, wise, vigilant and profitable a Governor as the Right Honourable Sir Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, who, by his great care and travail of body and mind, sincere and upright adminis- tration of justice without partiality ; the increase of Your Majesty's revenue without the least hurt or grievance to any your well-disposed and loving subjects, and to our great comfort and security ; the large and ample benefits which we have received, and hope to receive, by His Majesty's committee of grace for remedy of defective titles procured hitherto by His Lordship ; his pains in the restoration of the Church ; the reinforcement of the Army within this kingdom ; his support of Your Majesty's wholesome laws here esta-blished ; his encouragement and countenance to your judges and other good officers, ministers and disposers of the laws ; his care to relieve and redress the poor and oppressed ; for this your tender care over us showed by the deputing and support of so good a Governor, we your faithful subjects acknowledge ourselves more bound than we can with tongues or pen express." l For this rhapsody, which had in all probability been composed by Strafford himself before his departure from Ireland, the knights, citizens and burgesses of Ireland 1 Col. State Papers, Charles, March 9, 1641. 1641] STRAFFORD AND THE LINEN TRADE 81 substituted the following amendment, which, though erring on the side of exaggeration, was no doubt nearer the truth than the original : " That this kingdom, at such time as the Earl of Strafford first obtained the govern- ment thereof, was in flourishing, happy and wealthy estate, and that since the said Earl of Strafford first obtained the government, his advisers, councillors and ministers have altered the face of the government of the said kingdom by the introduction of a new, unlawful, arbitrary and tyrannical government ; by the determining of all or most causes upon paper, petitions and other unjust and unwarrantable proceedings and actions, to the particular profit of himself and his ministers, tending to the great impoverishment and destruction of His Majesty's said faithful subjects and the subversion of the former mild, laudable and legal government for many ages past settled and established in this kingdom. And further that the Earl and his Ministers have, beyond all measure and moderation, advanced and enriched them- selves by extortions, oppressions and all sorts of injustices, to the general grief and discontent of His Majesty's said faithful people." 1 The voice of the knights, citizens and burgesses was the voice of a united Ireland. In the north, Strafford was hated as the very embodiment of evil. The only claim that his memory had to respect was over the matter of the linen trade. Although it cannot be said that he was the founder of the Ulster linen trade, it must be admitted that he gave the industry an enormous stimulus. He took great pains to import the best seed, and a number of expert loom-makers from Holland. In 1636 1,000 worth of this seed was sown. " I am confident," Strafford wrote, " it will prove a mighty business considering that, in all probability, we shall be able to under-sell the linen cloths of Holland and France at least twenty in the hun- dred." * It was freely hinted that the Lord-Lieutenant's efforts on behalf of the linen trade were not entirely disinterested, and that he himself was no small gainer over the business. On the other hand, it is fully established that he embarked a good deal of his own capital in the venture, and had therefore every right to participate in 1 Protest to the Preamble to the Irish Act of Subsidy. 2 Strafford to Wandesford, July 25, 1631. 82 THE FINANCES OF THE STUARTS [CHAP, vin the profits. Any faint debt of gratitude which the north may have owed to Strafford over his encouragement of the linen trade was more than discounted by his ferocious hostility to the Scotch Presbyterians. Strafford whose best point was his unswerving devotion to his King was before all other things an Episcopalian. Whether his narrow intolerance in religious matters was merely a reflection of his loyalty to Charles, or whether it had a deeper root, is a matter for doubt. George Radclyffe, his cousin, secretary and biographer, would have us believe that deep religious convictions were at the back of his attitude ; but this statement is not easy of accept- ance. On the other hand, his dread and dislike of the Presbyterians, from the purely royalist point of view, is understandable. They were the Radicals of the day, questioning the King's divine rights in matters both civil and religious, and parading a new and dangerous independence of thought. To Strafford, no less than to Laud, this sect represented a cancerous growth, which called for the firm application of the knife. With this end in view, shortly before his recall to England he appointed a High Commission Court, the first business of which was the rigid enforcement of conformity. The Court per- formed its functions with vigour, but with a partiality which soon made it clear that strict conformity was not its real aim. Every engine of persecution within the grasp of the High Commission Court was directed against the Ulster Presbyterians, while, on the other hand, all the old indulgences to the Roman Catholics, which had been suspended under Loftus and Cork, became once more a recognised part of the government programme. This was a purely political move. Strafford had no greater love for the Roman Catholics than he had for the Presbyterians, but he recognised in the former a potential ally which might prove of the highest value, if the differences between the King and the Parliament had to be decided by the sword. The nonconformity of the Roman Catholics was therefore winked at, while that of the Presbyterians was attacked with the utmost virulence. One of the first acts of the High Commission Court was to issue a warrant to the Bishop of Down to arrest and imprison all Nonconformists. 1 This warrant, which 1 Reid's History of the Presbyterian Church. 1689] THE BLACK OATH 88 was quite illegal, and which formed the basis of one of the charges subsequently filed against Strafford, was to be enforced against Presbyterians only. No Roman Catholic was interfered with. A further and more trans- parent proof of Strafford's real aim was furnished by his attitude in the matter of the Black Oath. In January 1639, Charles had suggested to his Deputy that it would be desirable that the Ulster Presbyterians should be required to take the Oath of Supremacy. Strafford concurred in the idea, and the machinery for enforcing the Oath was set in motion. The actual Oath itself had been instituted in the reign of Henry VIII, but had seldom, if ever, been put in force. By its terms, every one, of either sex, over the age of sixteen was required to swear never to oppose any of the King's commands, and to take no oath or covenant of a contrary nature. In its appli- cation to Ulster no attempt was made to enforce the Oath on the Roman Catholics. Such was not Charles's aim. His aim was to draw the teeth of the Presbyterians in case these might feel disposed in the future to range themselves against him on the side of the Parliament. In face of a situation which to them represented vital issues, the distracted Presbyterians tried to procure the introduction of the word " lawful " before " Oath," in which case their main objection would have been removed ; but the point was not yielded. Commissions were issued to all the magistrates in the north to enforce the adminis- tration of the Oath in their respective districts. One thousand five hundred Roman Catholic troops, under the command of Strafford's cousin, Sir George Radclyffe, were sent up to Carrickfergus and neighbourhood, to act as a deterrent to any combination for resistance. 1 Some complied with the requirements of the Oath, sorely against their consciences, for religious no less than civil liberty was relinquished under its terms ; others obstinately refused. Many fled and hid in the woods and mountains ; many others left the country for ever, and escaped to Scotland. So depopulated did some parts of Antrim become that the harvest had to be left out in the fields for want of labour. The persecution of those that re- mained was very severe ; many were imprisoned and fined to an extent which meant and which was designed 1 Reid's History of the Presbyterian Church. 84 THE FINANCES OF THE STUARTS [CHAP, vm to mean ruin. Mr. Henry Stewart, e.g., was fined 5,000 and his wife 5,000 ; each of his two daughters 2,000, and his servant 2,000. All were imprisoned until the fines were paid. 1 The unpopularity of the Presbyterians in Dublin circles was in the main due to the iron severity of their religious tenets, and to the stern disapproval with which they viewed the contrasting laxity of the other Christian sects. This laxity had for some time past constituted a source of public scandal. The Episcopalian clergy were in most cases mere land speculators, and from all accounts of a very unscrupulous type. It is very difficult, from a study of the State correspondence of the day, to deduce any active hostility on the part of the natives to the lay settlers from Great Britain, but hostility to the Epis- copalian clergy stands out from every page. This may have been, and no doubt was, encouraged by the priests for their own ends, but none the less the hostility was not without grounds. The chief grievance in this connection was over the milk-tithe. The scandalous abuse of this tax by the clergy had been severely criticised by Chichester as early as 1614. The clergy, in retaliation, had accused Chichester of an impious desire to injure the Church. No abatement of the abuse, however, had followed. The practice had, in fact, spread rather than the contrary in the course of years. The nature of the grievance was as follows : coin of the realm was very scarce in Ireland, and most payments were made in kind. It was cus- tomary for the Church tithes to be paid in milk, and as the clergy were non-resident in the majority of their cures (of which they always had a plurality) the habit grew of farming out their milk-tithes to the highest bidder, a practice out of which arose many abuses and much discontent. On the side of the clergy it was urged that the Church lands allotted to them under the Plantation were so dovetailed in between the allotments of the Under- takers and the Servitors, and were consequently so scattered that they were practically valueless to the beneficiary. They were seldom even in the parish to which they were attached and where the incumbent lived, or was supposed to live.* Where such conditions were forced upon the clergy, irregular methods of collection and I irregular 1 Nalson, vol. ii. p. 78. a Clogy^Life of Bedell. 1641] LAXITY OF THE CLERGY 85 ministration of their office naturally followed. Bishop Bramhall wrote to Laud in 1633 : " It is hard to say whether the Church be more ruinous and sordid, or the people more irreverent. Even in Dublin we find a parochial church converted into one of the Lord Deputy's stalls, a second to a nobleman's dwelling-house, the choir of a third into a tennis-court with the vicar for keeper. One Bishop, in a remote part of the kingdom, holds twenty- three benefices. Seldom any suitor petitions for less than three vicarages at a time." Bramhall himself, if we can believe contemporary critics, was no model of integrity. Two men only, in fact, can at this period be said to stand out conspicuously from the slipshod rabble of Episcopalian divines which preyed on the country ; Dr. Usher, the Primate, and William Bedell, Bishop of Kilmore. The latter was by the agreement of all parties one of the saintliest men of all times. He laboured without ceasing, and with a fair measure of success, to reform his own diocese, the lamentable condition of which he candidly admitted. Outside of the limits of this one spiritual oasis in Cavan, there was very little that was creditable in the conduct of matters Episcopalian. Settlers and natives alike groaned under the depredations of the Church. Among the thirty-seven grievances filed by the knights, citizens and burgesses in July 1641, was a petition that " the exorbitant and barbarous customs of the clergy, voted to be abolished by the House of Commons, should be taken away by Act of Parliament." For an illustration of the condition in which the Roman Catholic clergy lived the reader is referred to Mr. Clogy's description of his visit to McSweeney, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kilmore, in 1642. 1 From the charges levelled against the Episcopalian and Roman Catholic clergy the Presbyterian ministers in Ulster were admittedly free. Stratford's rancour against them, and those they ministered to, was purely political, and based on the not unreasonable grounds that their co-religionists in Scotland were at the moment in open and armed defiance of the King. In the spring of 1639, when the Black Oath was being forced upon the Ulster Presbyterians, the King was not yet actually at war with the Covenanters, but it was fully recognised i Clogy's Life of Bedell. 86 THE FINANCES OF THE STUARTS [CHAP, vin that war was inevitable, and active preparations were ' being made on both sides for an encounter which could by no possibility be much longer averted. With the sympathies of the English people leaning so markedly in the direction of the Covenanters that the raising of a volunteer army was impossible, and with the royal exchequer so drained that a paid army was all but out of reach, it was agreed between Charles and Strafford that the simplest course open to them was to enlist the services of the Irish Roman Catholics, as being the one section of the public within the British Isles whose hatred and fear of the Covenanters was equal to their own. It is possible that, in order to stimulate recruiting, ex- aggerated accounts were put about by Strafford and his agents of the dangers which threatened the native Irish population, were the growth of the Covenanting move- ment not checked. After 1641 it was claimed by the Irish that the rising had been largely prompted by the fear which was generally entertained of the extermination of the native population by an invasion of fanatical Covenanters. That this excuse as an excuse crumbles away before a close examination of facts will be shown in due course, but none the less the probability remains that attempts may have been made to inspire some such fear, in order to increase the readiness of the Irish to arm. Strafford started his recruiting campaign in Lent, 1639, and within a year he had raised from among the native Irish an army of 8,000 foot and 1,000 horse, which he reported would be ready to sail for Scotland by the middle of May. 1 The Earl of Ormonde was appointed Commander- in-Chief, and Sir William St. Leger Sergeant-Major. All the officers were Protestants, but the vast majority of the rank and file were Roman Catholics. The new army was sent to Carrickfergus to be ready for embarkation at a moment's notice, and at Carrickfergus it remained all through the summer and winter of 1640 and up to May 1641. The original date of sailing was postponed, as such dates usually are postponed. Then came Conway's ignominious defeat at Newburn in August 1640, which made it clear that to launch the Carrickfergus army unaided against the victorious Scots would have been to invite disaster. So at Carrickfergus they still remained, to the 1 Strafford to Windebank, April 4, 1640. 1641] THE IRISH ARMY DISBANDED 87 very grave discomfort of the neighbourhood. The men were heavily drilled, but very lightly paid, and they soon took to plundering the country round for their subsistence. The complaints of the farmers, coupled with an appeal for the demobilisation of the force, were productive of no redress. As long as Windebank was alive, he and his royal master clung to the hope that an opportunity might yet occur of advantageously using an army whose natural prejudices fitted in so conveniently with their own. The Roman Catholic majority in Parliament was also strongly opposed to the demobilisation of this native army, for reasons which were little guessed at the time, but which became very clear in the light of subsequent events. On the English side of the Channel, Strafford was also reluctant to disband a force, which he had been at no little pains to raise, without utilising it for some purpose ; and, sooner than do this, he actually conceived the insane project of using the native Irish army to drive the Ulster Presby- terians out of Ireland. On October 8, 1640, he com- municated this scheme to Radclyffe in a private letter, but his cousin had the sense to treat the whole matter as the outcome of a disordered brain, and wisely kept the contents of the letter to himself. 1 On the successive deaths of Windebank and Strafford, the control of Irish affairs passed into the hands of the two Parliamentarians Parsons and Borlase, and Charles knew that the fate of his Irish army was sealed. Having failed to utilise it for military purposes, he made a last attempt to turn it into money by disposing of the whole force to the King of Spain. On May 13, 1641, he issued orders to seven officers, specially selected and named, to take charge of 1,000 men each and sail for Spain. Only one of the officers, Captain Bellings, was able to carry out his orders. The other six failed. The priests and friars made desperate efforts to prevent the men from leaving the country ; the soldiers themselves, under this encourage- ment, became mutinous and refused to embark ; the Government had no means of compelling their obedience, and in September 1641 they were disbanded. 1 Whittaker's Life of Radclyffe. PART II THE IRISH RISING OF 1641, WITH A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE MASSACRES 89 CHAPTER I HISTORICAL REVIEW IN any critical study dealing with the revolt of a native, and for the purposes of argument an indigenous people against the encroachments of colonists of another race, the views of native writers would seem to have a prima facie claim to consideration. In the matter of the 1641 rising, however, the Irish narratives content themselves with a bare recital of strongholds captured and Castles surprised during the first few days. The horrible occur- rences which followed, and which are commonly known as the " massacres," are not even hinted at. A reader with access to no other sources of information would form the conclusion that the recapture of Ulster by the Irish had been a practically bloodless achievement. To a certain extent, many British accounts of the subsequent suppression of the rising are open to the same criticism. Historians describe in detail the successive British victories in the field, with the numbers killed on each occasion ; but the massacres of women and children that filled up the gaps between the victories are passed over in silence not, it would seem, because these were accounted deeds of shame, but because they were not considered of sufficient public interest to merit a place in history. Widely different reasons, however, are assignable for the suppression of the details of the 1641 massacres by certain of our more modern historians. In the case of these the motive for suppression is either sentimental or political, and the justification for suppression is found in the silence of some of the British chroniclers of the seven- teenth century. If the Irish had risen against a united Britain, and if a united Britain had suppressed the rising, the issues before modern historians would at any rate have been definite. We should then have had, on the one side, the British view, on the other the Irish. Unfortunately, however, for history, the country was at the time divided into two very bitter antagonistic factions, indifferently 91 92 HISTORICAL REVIEW [CHAP, i known according to date and locality as Royalists and Parliamentarians, Cavaliers and Roundheads, Prelatists and Covenanters, and between these two factions there was, both at the date of the rising and for many years after, an irreconcilable hatred. This hatred is so strongly reflected in the histories of the times that we find truth continually subordinated to the eternal desire to throw discredit on the other party. At the first outbreak of the rising a common danger for the time united both parties against the Irish, but the moment it became apparent that the rebel forces were far less formidable than had been at first reported, it became a matter of less importance in the eyes of the Royalists and Parlia- mentarians to repress the Irish than to hamper and traduce each other. " It became the fashion for both parties to cast upon each other the blame of the Irish insurrection, and the reproach of having failed to use due means to suppress it." l When the parliamentary revolt in England began to take on the appearance of war, and when the armed forces of the Parliament began to threaten Charles's foot- hold in Ireland, Ormonde, in the hopes of helping his royal master, was forced into an alliance with the Irish rebels, whom, a year earlier, he had been pursuing at the point of the sword. It is from this unnatural alliance the outcome of a desperate situation that all the diffi- culties of the historian arise ; for the royalist writers of the day in their endeavour to justify the alliance were forced not only to push as far as possible out of sight the recent misdeeds of the Irish, but even to throw discredit, wherever possible, on the leaders who put down the rising, in every case where such leaders happened to be Parlia- mentarians. The most prominent apostle of this doctrine was naturally Carte, who, as Ormonde's biographer, was unavoidably driven to some such course, and it is on Carte that the anti-British propagandists mainly rely. Clarendon and Nalson, though pronounced Royalists, were not Ormonde's biographers, and were therefore free from the necessity of straining after a justification of the Marquis's ultimate alliance with the native Irish. Nalson was, in any case, more of a recorder than an historian, and Clarendon was before all else the apologist of Charles I, 1 Somers's Historical Tracts, vol. v. p. 572. 1641] CONFLICTING NARRATIVES 98 continually striving to persuade his readers that the late King never even contemplated invoking the aid of the Irish rebels. On the other side Temple, Borlase and Rush- worth, in a spirit of honest bigotry, give every possible prominence to the 1641 atrocities, but make no attempt to incriminate Charles I in the matter. Reid, who, as an historian, is possibly ahead of all those above named, was a Parliamentarian by conviction, but was saved from undue partisanship by his reverence for historical accuracy. The party feuds of the seventeenth century, and their re- flection in the British chronicles of the time, offer to modern historians a wide and varied field from which to select the shade of colour likely to fit the taste of their readers. Carte, the Royalist, has nothing good to say of Coote or Monro, while Reid and Rushworth are liberal in their criticisms of Ormonde. From these purely party re- criminations it is not difficult for a skilful writer to argue a general iniquity in all those who were opposed to the Irish during the rising, and from that basis to draw most misleading conclusions. The worst offender in this respect is Mr. W. E. H. Lecky, who exerts all his ingenuity in a generous effort to partly discount and partly excuse the horrors of 1641. Mr. Lecky, however, having once set out on this mission, goes many lengths beyond either Carte or Nalson, and at a distinct angle to the point they aimed at. The aim of Carte and Nalson is not so much to whitewash the Irish as to blacken the Parliamentarians, and from this black colouring obviously applied for party purposes Lecky tries to argue a corresponding whiteness in the seventeenth-century Irish. It is a generous effort, and it testifies to a kindly heart, but it is not his- torical ; and it is quite evident that Lecky himself is at times conscious of this flaw, for he becomes very visibly torn between a desire for truth on the one hand and his kindly inclinations on the other. The latter, as may be supposed, prove throughout the stronger motive, at times lowering the writer from the level of an historian to that of an eager counsel for the defence, putting forward every extenuating circumstance that his nimble mind can seize upon. Carte and Nalson were simply in the position of avowed partisans, having to justify the alliance of their party with those, who, a short time before, had been guilty of 94 HISTORICAL REVIEW [CHAP, i some very barbarous outrages. This end is achieved, or at all events attempted, by the double-edged process of either ignoring or explaining away the original massacres, which were the starting-point of all the horrors which followed, and by accentuating the reprisals of the Parlia- mentarians when they got the upper hand. Party politics in fact not for the first or the last time proved, with those two, a stronger influence than patriotism ; and not for the first or last time an English political party which needed the support of its country's enemies, tried, for the sake of decency, to paint its unnatural allies in as favourable a light as possible. If the Irish had massacred and tortured to the extent insisted upon by Temple, Borlase, Rushworth and other historians of the parlia- mentary party, the royalist confederacy with these whole- sale butchers of their fellow-countrymen would have been a very indefensible act. According to Temple, the rebellion was " so execrable in itself, so odious to God, and the whole world, as no age, no kingdom, no people can parallel the horrid cruelties and abominable murders that have been without number, as well as without mercy, com- mitted upon the British inhabitants throughout the land, of what sex or age soever they were." * The royalist writers do not actually repudiate this indictment, but they avoid facing it by the introduction of side-issues of a purely political nature. They are, therefore, never able to escape from the position of party apologists explaining inconvenient incidents away, a position which necessarily detracts from their value as impartial registrars of facts. In dealing with so controversial a subject as the 1641 rising perfect impartiality is not easy of attainment, and when attained is not readily recognised as such by those against whom judgment is given. Where fiction has for many generations held sway, truth is apt to take on a libellous aspect, and the writer who pursues it becomes an object of execration. To few does it seem to occur that truth may be sought out for its own sake and not as a means of wounding. The aim of the following chapters is to furnish a simple narrative of events as they actually occurred, or, at any rate, in as close a relation to the actual facts as is possible from a study of available evidence. 1 Temple's Irish Rebellion, p. 28. CHAPTER II THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION " THE cause of the rebellion," said Sir William Petty, " was the desire of the Romanists to recover the Church Revenues, worth about 110,000 per annum, and of the common Irish to get back all the Englishmen's estates, and of the ten or twelve grandees to get the empire of the whole." Carte is more definite and less diffuse. According to him, the sole cause of the rising was " the mortal hatred which the Irish in general, and the gentry in particular, who had been dispossessed of their estates by the Plantation, bore to the English nation." That in these few words of Carte's lies the true explanation of the rising cannot be doubted by any one who examines the voluminous evidence on the subject with honest care. The two other reasons assigned by Petty, though undoubted factors in the case, were very subsidiary to the main issues. Nothing in the social, agrarian or religious conditions of the country justified a sanguinary upheaval of the existing order of things. Ireland, in the year 1641, was in a state of unprecedented prosperity. As to that point we have incontestable evidence from both sides. Clarendon's opinion might be put aside as biassed, were it not endorsed by Irish writers of the same period. Clarendon says : " The Irish nation was possessed of the most blessed and happy conditions, before their own unskilful rage and fury brought this war upon them ; and they have since had leisure enough thoroughly to consider and value the wonderful plenty, peace and security which they enjoyed till the year 1641, when they wantonly and disdainfully flung those blessings from them. They were arrived to a mighty increase of traffic, improvement of land, erection of buildings and whatever else might be profitable or pleasant to any people ; and these desir- able advantages and ornaments the policy and industry of that nation was utterly unacquainted with, till they were brought to them by the skill and labour of the English, 8 95 96 THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, n planting and living charitably, friendly and hospitably among them. Taxes and tillages, and other contributions, were things hardly known to them so much as by their names. Whatever their lands, labour or industry pro- duced was their own ; and they were not only free from the fear of having it taken from them by the King, upon any pretence whatsoever without their consent, but also so secured against thieves and robbers by the execution of good laws, that men might and did travel over all parts of the kingdom with considerable sums of money unguarded and unconcealed.'* The pleasing picture here presented is repeated in rather different words by the author of the Irish contem- porary record known as The Aphorismical Discovery. This chronicle of the rebellion, of the events which led up to it, and of the war which succeeded it, was written by an Irish priest, who acted in the capacity of private se- cretary to Owen Roe. Of the pre-war condition of Ireland this chronicler writes : " In the month of October 1641 the kingdom of Ireland stood in fairer terms of prosperity than ever it had done these 500 years past; but," he adds gloomily, " commanded by foreigners, and the majesty of religion eclipsed." * That the country since the Plantation had blossomed out into an undreamt-of prosperity is beyond question. The Customs' rates had nearly trebled ; the linen industry had been given a tremendous impetus ; new industries were everywhere being started ; the food production of the province was vastly increased ; the breed of cattle and horses improved. All this is incontestable, and yet, none the less, it is certain that, below this superficial prosperity, there was an under-stratum of considerable poverty. The natives, for the most part, had been thrown back on the poorer lands. The reclamation of such lands appeared to them a hopeless and unprofitable undertaking, and one which was not only at variance with their traditional methods of living, but which was actually beyond the reach of their agricultural skill. Even where the native grandees had been allotted profitable lands, they made little attempt to imitate the agricultural methods of the colonists, but clung tenaciously to the old hand-to-mouth mode of living to which they had been accustomed. 1 See GUbert's Contemporary History. 1641] CAUSES OF DISCONTENT 97 Though freed from the exactions of the chiefs, and no longer liable to have the soldiery " cessed " upon them as of old, they had, on the other hand, to bear the double burden of tithes payable to the Episcopalian as well as to the Roman Catholic clergy. All these tithes were paid in kind, but we have Strafford's word for it that the double strain left them very poor. It would be only natural that the entire odium of these double exactions should fall on the shoulders of the English clergy and of the system which put them there ; nor is it to be conceived that the Roman Catholic priests would see the moiety of their customary dues passing into the hands of strangers without striving, by every means within their power, to lay the seeds of a revolt against such a division. Fed by the insidious whisperings of the priests and friars, such seeds germinated readily enough among an ignorant and credulous peasantry. It was, to a great extent, an arti- ficially produced growth, but none the less it flourished, as such growths have a way of flourishing. Higher up in the social scale, however, were all the elements of a dis- content which needed no such artificial stimulus. Sir Phelim O'Neil, his brother Tirlough Oge, Connor Maguire, Lord of Enniskillen, his brother Rory, the Earl of Antrim, and Sir Con Magennis were all heavily in debt, brooding over the olden days when they could levy rates on the country without stint, and attributing all their financial difficulties to English rule instead of to their own unbridled extravagance. Sir Phelim, at the time of the out- break, was thirty -five years of age ; he, as well as his brother Tirlough Oge, had been educated in England, and at one time had professed the Protestant faith. According to Leland, he was " of a mean understanding and a sensual and brutal temper. He took possession of his estates before he had acquired judgment or discretion to conduct himself, and in consequence was soon involved in all the difficulties arising from a licentious and dissipated life. . . . He entertained his imagination with the prospect of exchanging his present indigence and inferiority for the vast domains and princely power annexed to the title in old times." l The last paragraph has reference, of course, to the unique position in Ulster of Sir Phelim's great- great-grandfather, Shane O'Neil. Had the custom of * Leland, vol. iii. p. 99. 98 THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, n primogeniture been the custom in vogue among the Irish, Sir Phelim could legitimately have claimed that these possessions should have descended to him, but the fact that owing to the tanistry system the succession had been usurped by no less than two distinct collateral branches since Shane's day, disposed finally of any claims Phelim might otherwise have had. Shane O'NeiPs dynasty had died with him. Tirlough Luineach had been elected in his place, and, during his reign, Tyrone had crushed the life out of the sons of Shane. One he hanged, and four others he kept as permanent prisoners. Sir Phelim, however, lacked the judicial sense to realise that his ancestral estates had been wrested from him, not by any encroachments of the English, but by the piratical greed of his own kindred. Still less had he the generosity to admit that but for the friendly interference of the English he would have been left with nothing at all. This, however, was the literal truth. To such beggary had Tyrone reduced the sons of Shane that, in the end, the only means of subsistence of the three survivors (Henry Con and Tirlough) was a daily allowance of 4s. from the English Government. 1 It is also worthy of observation that, although Sir Phelim found it convenient to fasten the blame for his misfortunes on to the English, Sir Phelim's great-grandfather, Henry McShane, had been under no such illusions as to the cause of his troubles. " The Earl of Tyrone," he wrote to Salisbury on April 24, 1606, " has dispossessed me of all my lands." To this landless and penniless outcast, and to his kinsmen, the English Government came in the guise of a saviour. When Tyrone fled the country in 1607, Henry McShane was given 2,000 acres of profitable land in Armagh, and his brother Con 1,500 acres in Fermanagh. The hope of the Government, however, was in Henry McShane's son, known as Sir Henry Oge of Portnelligan, and to him very considerable grants were made. He was originally assigned 2,000 acres at Kinard and 2,000 acres across the river in Oneilland,* but he had ultimately increased his holding in Armagh to 4,900 acres, apparently by piratical en- croachments in the barony of Tiranny, with the con- nivance, or at any rate without the interference, of the 1 Col. State Papers, James, 97. Sir John Davies to Saliubury, August 6, 1608. 1641] SIR PHELIM O'NEIL 99 Government. 1 In considering these figures, it must be kept in mind that only " profitable " land was reckoned, and that the actual acreage acquired was very much greater. Henry Oge was killed in Donegal very shortly after he had received this grant. His eldest son, Tirlough, was, at the same time, so badly wounded that he survived his father but a very short time. According to the law of primogeniture, which it was Chichester's aim to establish, the property should then have passed to Tirlough's son Phelim, who was at that time only two years of age. To Chichester, however, it appeared most undesirable to vest such large estates in an infant, and he accordingly recommended the King to divide Henry Oge's lands up among his other sons, leaving a reasonable share only for Phelim to inherit when he came of age. 8 This was done. Robert Hovedon married Tirlough's widow, and undertook the charge of young Phelim. When Phelim grew up he became very dissatisfied with an arrangement which he considered to be an injustice to himself and a violation of the principle of primogeniture, and, on these grounds, he made an application to Charles I for the restitution of all the lands which had been granted to his grandfather. The application was favourably considered and eventually granted.* Phelim's extravagance, however, was such that even the property which he thus regained failed to meet his expenses, and at the time of the outbreak it was very heavily mortgaged. The case of Lord Maguire was very similar in many respects to that of Sir Phelim, as he too owed everything he possessed in the way of land to the intervention of the English. In view of the fact that Lord Maguire, his brother Rory and Sir Phelim were among the chief instigators of the rebellion, and in view of the further fact that two out of the three were conspicuously brutal to the British within their power, there is a certain instruction in con- sidering the case of the Maguires. Lord Maguire was twenty-six years of age at the date of the rising, and according to Leland " a youth of mean understanding and of a licentious and expensive life, already overwhelmed with debts," 4 For all his pro- 1 Earl of Tyrone's Articles, Cal. State Papers, James, p. 502. a See Project for Undertakers in Walter Harris's Hibernica. 3 Ferdinando Warner, vol. i. p. 29. * Leland, vol. ii. p. 95. 100 THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, n nounced Anglophobia, he like Sir Phelim owed every- thing to the English. His grandfather, Connor Roe Maguire, had been dispossessed of all his estates in Fer- managh by his illegitimate brother, Hugh. The English Government had taken up the case of Connor Roe, and, after Hugh had been killed and his younger brother Cuconnaught had fled the country with Tyrone, Connor Roe was established in possession of the baronies of Magherastephana, Clankelly, Knocknimy and Tirkennedy. The two last named were reckoned as half baronies, a circumstance which has given rise to some confusion as to whether Connor Roe originally had three or four baronies. As a matter of fact they were four in number, but were reckoned as three. Clankelly, Knocknimy and Tir- kennedy were afterwards relinquished to the Crown by Connor Roe, in consideration of an annuity of 200 a year and 50 a year to his son Brian after his death. 1 He retained the entire barony of Magherastephana, which was reckoned at the time to contain 6,840 acres of profitable land, and for which he paid a rent to the Crown of 15 a year. Connor Roe died in 1627, and, after his death, his son Sir Brian was created Baron Maguire of Enniskillen. In the following year Lord Maguire received further marks of the King's favour, for he was authorised to raise and command a troop of 100 horse at the King's charge ; to collect for his own use all market dues in the barony of Magherastephana, and to enclose as a park any 2,000 acres he might select. 1 In the meanwhile, Connor Roe's youngest half-brother Brian had for a time, with the approval of the King, taken over the four baronies left vacant by the flight of Cuconnaught.* These, however, the exigencies of the Plantation and the claims of other branches of the Maguire family did not permit of his retaining, and the four baronies were split up and redistributed. It would be perhaps too much to expect from " a youth of mean understanding " that he should exhibit gratitude for benefits conferred on his grandfather. Lord Maguire did not. Reasoning by the same warped process as Sir Phelim, he found grievance in the fact that he was not 1 Philadelphia Papers, vol. iv. p. 133. 1 See Appendix to Gilbert's Contemporary History. 3 Col. State Papers, James, 1610, 708, and 1608, 97. 1641] LORD MAGUIRE 101 lord over the entire county, as his great-grandfather Cuconnaught had been. He ignored the fact that, if the British had stood aside and let matters take their natural course, Hugh Maguire would have usurped the county, and Connor Roe and his descendant Lord Maguire would have been landless. It is probable that his most active cause of grievance would be found in Connor Roe's aban- donment of three baronies for an annuity which did not descend to his grandson, the blame for which he would naturally lay to the charge of the British and not of his grandfather. The proposal had undoubtedly originated with Chichester, and there can be no question but that such transactions were very greatly in the interests of a Government with a heart set on colonisation. On the other hand, Chichester distinctly stipulated that the trans- action was not to go through unless Connor Roe was a consenting party. Connor Roe, we know, did consent, nor need we feel surprise at his consenting : 200 a year in 1610 was equivalent to a very much larger sum to-day, and it is conceivable that the annuity agreed upon more than represented the rents recoverable from the relin- quished lands. The lands were very poor. Pynnar, in his Survey, makes special reference to the extreme poverty of Fermanagh owing to the grasping exactions of the Maguires extending over many generations, so that we may rest assured that Connor Roe, with his 200 a year from the Government, and his barony of Magherastephana, was no loser by his bargain. The losers by the composition he made would be the descendants that came after him. Half the trouble and unrest of Ireland has always been traceable to the impoverishment of the sons of affluent but improvident parents. The chief curse of Ireland for centuries past has been the tendency of the upper classes to live entirely for their own lives without regard to those who are to come after. This disastrous custom is beyond doubt a surviving relic of the old tanistry system, which made the succession to estates elective instead of here- ditary. The reckless extravagance of the man in pos- session naturally followed on a system under which no man knew who would be his successor, for it is against reason that men should work or save for an unknown heir. Perrot had realised the truth of this in 1588 when, in commenting on the tanistry system and its evils, he wrote 102 THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, n that " men live but for their own day, when they cannot build for their children." Long before Perrot's time, however, Henry VIII had stigmatised the tanistry system as being the root of all Irish evils. Nor was he far wrong. It bred bitter feuds and bloody massacres on the death of every county magnate, and it encouraged the successful candidate to live at the highest rate of expenditure possible. The inevitable result was a country that systematically went from bad to worse. No commercial industries were established for the benefit of an unknown successor ; no agricultural improvements encouraged ; no social reforms attempted. Carpe diem was the motto of all whom the turn of the wheel of fate had placed in temporary pos- session of this world's goods. After many centuries of a life so ordered, the habit of idleness and improvidence became ingrained as a part of the national character. There were no inducements in other directions, nor was any need for alteration realised when all the resulting ills could be conveniently ascribed to the presence of the English in the land. In 1641 the tanistry system was no longer in operation, but its effects remained. Men continued to live but for their own day. Connor Roe, as we have seen, sold three baronies for an annuity of 200 a year. To Shane McBrian, Neil Oge McHugh and Rory Oge McQuillin, the lure of ready money had proved equally irresistible. All of these had exchanged their estates in Antrim for cash, leaving their children beggars. The money was spent, and nothing left behind but a legacy of bitter discontent. Farther south again, Con McNeil sold 22,000 acres to Hamilton and Mont- gomery in consideration of 60 ready cash and an annuity of 160,* an arrangement which left his son Daniel (a nephew of Owen Roe's and a man of some distinction) a beggar at the outset of his life. Sir Oghie O'Hanlon, again, sold the barony of Orior for 200 cash and an annuity of 80. These few cases are merely cited as illustrative of the way in which the evil effects of the tanistry system sur- vived even after the custom itself had been superseded. Landed proprietors bled their estates to the last drop, and i Hamilton MSS. Laud to Wentworth, January 16, 1635. See also petition of Daniel O'Neil. 1 Chichester to Salisbury, October 27, 1608. 1641] EFFECTS OF THE SPENDTHRIFT HABIT 108 their heirs, at the best, succeeded to mortgaged and dimin- ished estates. The less fortunate found themselves quite penniless and landless. From among these penniless and landless sons of good families have always sprung the main elements of discontent and rebellion in Ireland. In 1637 Strafford wrote to Mr. Cox : " Nevertheless, there is a nation of the Irish, the whilst, that wander abroad, most of them criminous, ail-lewdly affected people that, forth of an unjust yet habitual hatred to the English Govern- ment, delight to have it believed, and themselves pitied as persecuted forth of the country, and ravished of their means for their religion only, stirring and inciting all they can to blood and rebellion, and keeping themselves in countenance by taking upon them to be grand seigniors, and boasting and entitling themselves to great dignities and territories whose very names were scarcely heard of by their indigent parents." l The last sentence is cryptic, and not illustrative of the particular point aimed at. Strafford's allusion here is clearly to the illegitimate sons of chiefs, who no doubt helped to swell the throng of needy and mutinous aristocrats. The chief element of disturb- ance, however, lay in the recognised sons of landed chiefs, who had been left penniless by the improvidence of their parents. These, for the most part, adopted brigandage as the only profession worthy of their high lineage. In the seclusion of the woods and mountain fastnesses, from which they made their descents upon the lowlands, they had ample opportunity for feeding their discontent on a retrospect of the family grandeur, and their hatred of England on a vision of aliens growing fat on their ancestral acres. As the spendthrift habit owing to the futility of thrift and industry had become an ingrained part of the national character, so also had the habit of attributing all misfortunes to the presence in Ireland of the British. From the axiom that all ills came from British rule, it was but a short step to the corollary that everything which originated with the British must be intrinsically baneful. Where such jaundiced views are hailed as tokens of patri- otism, it is clearly hopeless to look for any definite ray of reasonableness. The native Irish, with minds perverted by the sustained falsehoods of their instructors, would i Strafford to Cox, May 15, 1637. 104 THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, n admit no debt of gratitude to the British under any cir- cumstances. Even in cases where, as an act of grace, estates had been conferred on their families, there was no responsive gratitude in the recipient. The donors were cursed because they had not given more. Every gift be- came construed into an injury because it was not a larger gift. This is obviously a form of grievance which, from its very nature, is capable of being nursed to eternity. It is insatiable, because it always keeps ahead of the benefit conferred. The alleged insufficiency of the gift is gradu- ally worked up into an injustice, till, in the end, a man's kindliest benefactor takes the shape of his deadliest enemy. To return to the dissipated young man known as Lord Maguire, we find him heavily in debt in 1641, and conjur- ing up a grievance against England because his grandfather had sold a large part of his estates for cash. In truth, however, the causes of the discontent of Sir Phelim, the Maguires, McMahon and Magennis were both deeper and more genuine than those that they waived upon the sur- face. Their real grievance lay in the abolition of the old Irish feudal system, and in the substitution of English forms of land tenure, and of legal protection for the weak. It is to be doubted whether they wasted any thought over the abolition of the tanistry system, for as the men in possession this had little interest for them. It was the abolition of the old Irish exactions that excited their resentment and awakened their atavistic tendencies. They looked around, and saw the surface of Ulster flecked with prosperous men of another race, from whom they were no longer at liberty to exact the old cessings, cut- tings and cosherings with which to make good the de- ficiencies caused by their extravagance. In the good old days, to the restitution of which they looked so eagerly, no Irish chieftain was ever in debt, for he simply took what he wanted from his serfs. The abominable wicked- ness of the system of exactions which made this possible cannot be better explained than in the words of Sir John Davies, the Solicitor-General for Ireland in the early days of the seventeenth century. The worst of the old exac- tions had been the customs of coyne, livery and bonnaght ; but, as these only came into operation in connection with the maintenance of the standing armies which the chiefs in esse and posse were forced to have at their backs, it is 1641] THE OLD IRISH EXACTIONS 105 not to be supposed that any of the Ulster magnates thirsted for their revival. For the other old customs, however, these extravagant and dissipated men, hampered with debt, must have longed very greedily, for therein lay an easy road out of all their difficulties. Sir John Davies describes these customs in the following language : " The Irish exactions extorted by the chieftains and tanists, by colour of their barbarous seigniory, was about as grievous a burden [as coyne, livery and bonnaght, which he had just dealt with], viz : ' cosherings,' which were visitations and progresses made by the lord and his followers among his tenants, wherein he did eat them (as the English pro- verb is) out of house and home. ' Cessings ' of the kerne and his family of horses and horseboys, of his dogs and dogboys and the like ; and, lastly, * cuttings, tallages and spendings,' high or low at his pleasure, all of which made the lord an absolute tyrant and the tenant a very slave and villein, and in one respect more miserable than bond- slaves, for commonly the bondslave is fed by his lord, but here the lord is fed by his bondslave." Davies next explains why the suppression of these old Irish exactions was so hateful to the upper classes in Ireland. " First, the common people are taught by the Justice of Assize that they are free subjects to the King of England and not slaves and vassals to their pretended lords ; that the cuttings, cessings and cosherings and other extortions of their lords are unlawful, and that they should not any more submit themselves thereunto, since they are now under the protection of so just and mighty a prince, as both would and could protect them from all wrongs and oppression. They gave a willing ear unto these lessons, and thereupon the greatness and power of those Irish lords over the people suddenly fell and van- ished, when their oppressions and extortions were taken away, which did maintain their greatness." In these words of Sir John Davies lies the explanation of why religion was ultimately pressed into the service of the revolt. The revolt was primarily against the English innovations which had emancipated the serfs. It is not to be supposed that the education of the younger genera- tion would be on these lines. They would, on the con- trary, be fed with golden tales of the glories that had been under the great Tyrone, before the Ulster Plantation had 106 THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, n cast a blight upon the land. None the less it is certain that some among the greybeards would shake their heads. A bare five-and-thirty years had passed since the feudal system had ceased to be the order of Government in Ulster, and there would be many yet living to whom its hangings, its tortures, its droits de seigneurs and pitiless grinding of the poor would still be a very dreadful memory. There is no evidence as to the extent to which the croak- ings of the old men damped the ardour of the younger generation, but that Sir Phelim's revolt did not go of its own momentum, with the free swing anticipated, is made quite clear by the belated introduction of the religious element as an auxiliary spur. Carte names April 1642 as the date at which religion was introduced, but a more modern study of events would seem to place it quite three months earlier : and a point which seems equally clear is that the stimulus of religion was brought into play when the original incentive of greed had begun to wane. By the end of 1641 all the money and valuables of the British colonists had passed to the Irish, either by direct seizure or by transfer under torture. We know that the scramble for this plunder was the cause of bitter dissen- sions and divisions among those whom Sir Phelim aimed at uniting into a solid body against the aliens. George Creichton, a Presbyterian curate, who lived as a prisoner for many months among the rebels, deposed in his evi- dence before the commission that " he never saw such base covetousness as did show itself in these Irish robbers, such bitter envyings and emulations, such oppositions and divisions and evil speaking behind the backs of one an- other." 1 There was no promise of victory in conditions such as these. Without unity, ultimate disaster was assured, and the only force strong enough to compel that unity was religion. Religion had throughout been pre- sent as a supporting factor in the rising, but not as the prime incentive, nor had this so far been possible. The resolution of the Roman Catholic Church at Multifarnham in Co. Meath had been in favour of a moderate and humane revolution. In the success of such a revolution the Roman Catholic Church had its obvious interests. Its revenues, estimated by Petty at 110,000 per annum, had been diverted to clerics of a rival order, and the 1 Deposition of the Rev. George Creichton. 1641] THE MULTIFARNHAM EDICT 107 restitution of these was a prize worthy of effort. A tem- perate religion, however, has obviously little value as a call to bloodshed. For Sir Phelim's purpose incendiary fanaticism was called for, and for such he would not have far to seek in Ireland. The evidence, however, is to the effect that the better-class priests, and the ruling bodies of the Roman Catholic Church, were steadfastly opposed to the horrible barbarities associated with the rising. This is not only strongly indicated by the evidence of the depositions, but is established as a fact by the resolutions passed by the General Assembly of Roman Catholic Bishops at Kilkenny on May 10, 11 and 13, 1642. 1 Leland says : "It appears with the utmost clearness, which can reasonably be acquired in historical evidence, that the design was nothing less important than the utter subversion of all the late establishments of property, restor- ing the Irish to all that they had lost by the rebellion of their ancestors, or the decisions of the law, and procuring an establishment for the Roman Catholic religion, with aU the splendour and affluence of its hierarchy." '. All this is no doubt true. It would have been remarkable indeed if the Roman Catholic Church had not aimed at the re- establishment of its ancient greatness, and it is common ground that the rising was organised by the Roman Catholic Church no less than by the discontented Irish aristocracy. The point on which insistence is here made is as to the disassociation of the better-class priests, and of the Roman Catholic Church, in its official capacity, from the horrible outrages which accompanied the rising. It seems tolerably clear, in fact, that the absence of any general massacre during the first fortnight of the rising was due, in the main, to the resolution in favour of modera- tion passed by the ecclesiastical bodies at Multifarnham prior to the outbreak. At this Convocation there were the usual two extreme parties. The more moderate, represented by the Fran- ciscans and their adherents, were strongly opposed to any massacre ; they voted in favour of a general expulsion of all Protestants, but without bloodshed. The fanatical firebrands, on the other hand, were for total extermina- tion. In the end a compromise was arrived at, and it was agreed that all should be despoiled, but that only 1 See p. 221. Leland, p. 104. 108 THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, n particularly obnoxious persons, or those who resisted spoliation, should be killed in the first instance. 1 It is, however, sufficiently obvious that, in spite of the Multi- farnham decision, the views of the extreme party would remain unaltered, and it would be from among the mem- bers of this party that Sir Phelim would find the material to back him in his spread of Anglophobia. In the first days of the rising it was hoped that, by the seizure of all the castles and walled cities, the Irish would make them- selves such complete masters of the situation that the naked and homeless British would gradually die off from stress of weather and starvation, and that the objects of the rising would thus be achieved without going counter to the letter of the Multifarnham resolution. In further- ance of this plan, orders were issued from headquarters that no one was to succour or shelter any of the British under pain of death. The Lords Justices and Council, in writing to the Lord- Lieutenant in England on December 14, 1641, made the following statement : " The rebels have proclaimed that if any Irishman shall harbour or relieve any English that be suffered to escape them with his life, that it shall be penal even to death to such Irish, and so they shall be sure even though they put not those English to the sword yet they do as certainly and more cruelly cut them off that way than if they had done it by the sword. . . . And they profess that they will never give over until they leave not any seed of an Englishman in Ireland." * If this scheme had been carried out as planned it is clear that Ulster would in a very short time have been freed of the British element without any extensive blood- shed. The simultaneous seizure of all strong places, however, missed fire. The naked refugees, instead of starving on the mountains, found their way to Dublin, Derry, Coleraine, Drogheda and Carrickfergus, and to a number of private Castles such as Enniskillen, Keilagh, Augher and Ballintoy, from which they successfully defied all the attempts of the Irish to dislodge them, and from which they would even sally forth and inflict severe defeats on the investing forces. Under this unexpected development, hunger and cold though claiming a heavy 1 Hickson's Ireland in the Seventeenth Century. 2 Lords Justices to Lord-Lieutenant, December 14, 1641. 1641] THE SYSTEM OF MUTILATION 109 toll of victims proved by no means the engine of uni- versal death that had been anticipated. With the failure of hunger and cold as instruments of extirpation, an attempt was made to produce the same results by other means, and yet to keep within the letter of the Multifarnham edict. There can be very little doubt that the practice of mutilating and wounding, but not killing outright, was suggested to the ignorant minds of the natives by the belief that, in this way, the desired end would be attained without a direct violation of the injunctions of the Roman Catholic Church. A number of the depositions testify to the way in which the Irish, in the earlier stages of the massacre, would mortally wound their victims and then fling them into ditches to die, no doubt under the belief that this was not killing within the meaning of the Multifarnham edict. Elizabeth Price deposed in her evidence " that a great number of poor Protestants, especially of women and children, they pricked and stabbed with their skeans, pitchforks and swords, and would slash, mangle and cut them in their heads, breasts, faces, arms and other parts of their bodies, but not kill them outright, but leave them wallowing in their blood to languish, starve and pine to death, of which she hath in many particulars been an eye-witness." * We know that Sir Phelim himself expostulated with Manus O'Cahan for adopting these roundabout methods, but the lay mind was not sufficiently authoritative on such a subject. A man named Nathaniel Higginson, in his deposition, swore that this system of mortally wounding, but not killing outright, was recommended to the Irish by their priests as an effective way of working their will, and yet of keeping within the Multifarnham edict. 8 Later on, however, this plan proved too slow, and the services of the more fanatical priests had to be called in to give a religious sanction to the unrestrained use of fire, water and sword. It is possible that Sir Phelim himself may have been susceptible to religious influences more especially when they fell in line with his own personal interests ; but the real force that drove him and the other Ulster chiefs was Anglophobia a hatred of English laws, English settled 1 Deposition of Elizabeth Price. 1 Deposition of Nathaniel Higginson. 110 THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, n estates, and English restrictions on tyranny. At every step of the rising indications crop up which prove that, among the upper-class Irish, the feeling at the back of the movement was racial rather than religious. The Lords of the Pale, English by descent, Roman Catholic in re- ligion, knew this only too well. Their co-operation had been sought at first on the pretext of the religious tie which bound them to the other conspirators ; but, before the rising was two months old, they were left with few illusions as to the fate which awaited them when the Eng- lish and Scotch had been successively disposed of. The neutrality of the Scotch was courted in the earlier stages, but with an absence of success which completely upset the original scheme. This scheme had been to destroy in rotation the English, the Scots, and, lastly, the Anglo- Irish Roman Catholic Lords of the Pale. 1 To this end the Scots were, at first, officially exempted from molestation in person or property, in the fond hope that they would temporarily stand aside and look on until the English had been destroyed. Luckily, however, the Scots were not so easily fooled, and seeing clearly through the whole somewhat transparent trick they banded together from the first against a danger which they recognised as being common to all of British blood. That all except such as were of pure Irish blood were to be extirpated under the scheme irrespective of religion is established from a variety of quarters. The goal aimed at was that of a pan-Irish community, from which every trace of British influence or British occupation was to be expunged. The Pale Lords came very clearly within this category (which actually included cattle and horses of English breed), and well they knew it, but they had not at the first a corresponding knowledge of the extent of the Anglophobe mania which really ruled the situation. They were for a time deceived into the belief that the movement was at bottom a religious movement. The aim of the conspirators at the first was to encourage this belief in the hopes of enlisting the sympathy of the Pale Lords, or, at any rate, of buying their neutrality till the Protestant British had been disposed of. It was an obvious ruse, and yet one which placed those at whom it was aimed in an awkward dilemma. They found them- 1 See Lord Maguire's Confession. 1641] THE ANGLO-IRISH OF THE PALE 111 selves swayed in one direction by ties of blood, and pos- sibly by self-interest, and in the opposite direction by the index finger of the Holy Roman Church. They knew that they were trusted by neither party. In the earlier stages it is fairly evident that they were completely hood- winked as to the ultimate aims of the rising, for we know that they made strenuous and successful efforts to pre- vent the Irish Roman Catholic Army at Carrickfergus from leaving for Spain. They were, however, not deceived for long. The atrocious cruelties practised by the rebels dis- gusted many of them and alarmed others. The Earl of Antrim, who, though not a Pale Lord, was in Dublin at the time of the rising, was one of the first to shake himself clear of an enterprise with which he had originally been in sympathy, on the grounds that " he could see nothing in it but desolation and execrable cruelty." l Others in time followed his lead, and, before six months had passed, the Roman Catholic Pale Lords and Sir Phelim's cut-throat bands had little in common. By this time, too, the atti- tude of assumed friendliness on the grounds of religious conformity was appreciably relaxed. George Creichton, whose experience among the rebels has already been alluded to, made the following interesting declaration on the subject of the relations existing between the Roman Catholic English of the Pale and the native Irish insur- gents : " The Anglo-Irish of the Pale and the native Irish," he wrote, " as this deponent believes, hate one another as much as any two nations in the world. . . . The Pale people said how unfortunate they were to be joined in this contest to such people as have ever been their enemies, in whom there was neither honesty nor worth ; people proud without anything that was honour- able, covetous without industry, and bragging without valour." * The Irish, on the other hand, if we can take Sir Phelim as their mouthpiece, had nothing good to say of the Pale Lords, whom, according to another witness, they contemptuously described as "those ugly, ill- favoured English churls of the Pale." Still another wit- ness, also a prisoner in Cavan, bore testimony to Sir Phelim's sinister intentions (expressed in his hearing) to- 1 Deposition of Dr. Robert Maxwell. * Dep. of Rev. George Creichton. 3 Dep. of Ambrose Bedell. 112 THE CAUSES OF THE REBELLION [CHAP, n wards the Roman Catholics of the Pale, as soon as the opportunity might offer. Ambrose Bedell, the Bishop of Kilmore's son, reported the Irish leader to have repeatedly uttered the following threat in his hearing : " You churls with the great breeches, do you think that if we were rid of the other English we would spare you ? No, for we would cut all your throats, for you are all of one race with them, though we make use of you for the present." 1 The following incident during the Fermanagh massacres tends to confirm the view that religious conformity had little value as a set-off against British blood. At a place called Ganalley, in the spring of 1642, between forty and fifty English and Scottish Protestants were promised their lives if they would take Mass. This they did and asserted their belief in the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. When they had so far conformed the officiating priest, " one Hugh McO'Degan, said he was pleased to see they were all now in the good faith, and, for fear they should go back, he cut all their throats." * Judge Donellan, in his address to Sir Phelim at his trial, attributed all the atrocities committed to the inherited hatred of the English. He reminded the prisoner of how Shane O'Neil had built a fort, which he named Fagh na Gall, or " Hate of the English," and pointed out how, by means of continued suggestion, this traditional hatred had become a fixed idea among the Irish, dominating all other feelings. " The Irish hatred was greater against the English than against their religion," says Mr. Clogy, another of the Cavan prisoners, and, as an illustration, he cites the case of two proselytized British Roman Catholics named Poole and Forsyth, who had come to Kilmore during the previous year, and who, in spite of their re- ligion, were both despoiled and ill-treated. 1 1 Dep. of Michael Harrison. * Dep. of Alexander Creichton. 3 Clogy's Life of CHAPTER III APOLOGETIC VIEW OF THE RISING ALTHOUGH the real causes responsible for the rising of 1641 are transparently clear to such as wish to see, it none the less becomes necessary to examine in brief the alleged causes, or rather excuses, put forward by Irish writers in extenuation of the barbarities committed, more especially as the Irish point of view has been in part adopted by certain English historians. The Irish claim is that the rising was primarily in the interests of King Charles I, and secondly a defensive move which aimed at forestalling the design of the Scottish Covenanters to exterminate the Irish Roman Catholics by means of an invading army " with sword and Bible in hand," under the command of General Leslie. 1 Mr. W. E. H. Lecky, who is perhaps the most prominent apologist of the Irish point of view, does not go so far as to support the first claim, but he has much to say about the second. The Irish themselves were clever enough from the first to make the cause of Charles the cloak behind which they hid their real objects. " They admitted that they thought it lawful to pretend what they could in advancement of their cause, and argued that, in all wars, rumours and lies served many times to as good a purpose as arms." * The Irish leaders had, in fact, somehow got the idea firmly rooted in their minds that no acts, however bloody and violent, could be ranked as rebellion so long as they were perpe- trated under the nominal banner of the King. They had a maxim " that though many thousands were in arms, and exercising the violences of war, yet, if they professed not to rise against the King, it was no rebellion." * In order, therefore, to carry out their designs against 1 Remonstrance of Irish Roman Catholics (Nalson, vol. ii. p. 565). 1 Carte to Mr. Chandler, February 19, 1713 (Somers's Tracts, vol. v. p. 647). * Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 47. 113 114 APOLOGETIC VIEW OF THE RISING [CHAP. Hi the British, and, at the same time, to steer clear of the stigma of rebellion, the leaders took the precaution, from the start, of announcing that their aim was the loyal advancement of the King's interests. Sir Phelim subse- quently admitted the fraud, as also the reason for making use of it ; but Irish writers still keep up the old pretence. There is little profit in flogging a dead horse, still the following points in this connection are worthy of atten- tion : 1. Charles was the first to warn the Lords Justices, through Sir Henry Vane, of the danger of an Irish rising ; he wrote to them in March 1641 announcing that he had certain information from Spain that a rising was contem- plated and urging them to take special precautions. 1 2. His first act, on learning of the rising, was to despatch 1,500 arms for its suppression. 1 3. Sir Phelim, on the scaffold, was offered his life if he could prove that Charles had authorised the rising. He was obliged to admit that he could not. 4. Charles himself repudiated any sympathy with, or complicity in, the rising in the following emphatic language : " The commotions in Ireland were so sudden and so violent that it was hard at first either to discern the cause or apply a remedy to that precipitate rebellion. Indeed, that sea of blood which hath there been cruelly and barbarously shed is enough to drown any man in eternal infamy and misery, whom God shall find the malicious author and instigator of its effusion. It fell out, as a most unhappy advantage to some men's malice against me, that, when they had impudence enough to lay anything to my charge, this bloody opportunity should be offered them with which I must be aspersed ; although there was nothing which could be more abhorrent to me, being so full of sin against God, disloyalty to myself and destruction to my subjects." * The above facts, unassailable as they are, do not in any way affect the attitude taken up by writers such as Curry and Prendagast, who gravely represent the horrid acts of 1641 and 1642 as the loyal efforts of devoted sub- jects in the interests of their King. The following quota- tion from the Aphorismical Discovery furnishes a typical illustration of the illogical lengths to which Irish writers are prepared to go, and of the pitfalls into which they occasionally drop in straining after the unattainable: * Carte. Rushworth. a Nalson, vol. ii. p. 540. 1641] THE REBELS' PRETENCE OF LOYALTY 115 " Sir Phelim and his northern people demolished all the forts and castles which they took from the enemy (i.e. the British) except Charlemont, nay, his very own house, so that the enemy had very few garrisons to look after in the north ; but still, in two separate bodies, one dependent on Carrickfergus and another from the Lagan under the command of Sir Robert Stewart, followed still the Royal- ists wherever they heard of their being." 1 This ludicrous attempt to identify the rebels with the royalist party fight- ing for King Charles crumbles to pieces over the single fact that Sir Robert Stewart, the commander of the Lagan Force referred to, raised his regiment by special royal commission from King Charles himself, and was through- out such a consistent and uncompromising Royalist that he was finally imprisoned by the Parliament for utilising his position at Culmore Fort in order to harass the parlia- mentary army in Derry. 8 In another passage the same writer says of the first two days of the rising : " All the English and Scots in those several counties refusing to swear allegiance to His Majesty, being only desired of them, adhered unto their brethren the Roundheads and went in troops disarmed to Dublin, some to England." l It is unfortunate for the author that his attempts to identify the Ulster colonists with the Roundheads is offi- cially refuted by a document issued by the Irish rebels themselves, at a time when they were straining after a very different point. " Were not all the Protestants in Ireland zealous martialists for the King at the beginning of these wars ? " says the Survey of Articles of the Rejected Peace, a paper which was drawn up in the form of a Re- monstrance by the Irish Roman Catholics in 1646. There can be no doubt that the clever idea of identify- ing the 1641 rebels with the Royalists and their unhappy victims with the Roundheads was first suggested to Irish writers by the King's several attempts, during his wars with the Parliament, to make peace with the Irish on almost any terms so as to release the English Royalist troops in Ireland for service against the Parliament. The King also undoubtedly entertained hopes, even to the last, of enlisting the services of the Irish themselves against his foes in England. 1 4phoriamical Discovery. 2 Carte. 3 Aphorismical Discover 11G APOLOGETIC VIEW OF THE RISING [CHAP, m He knew that the natural hatred of the Roman Catholics towards the Puritans was equal to, if not greater than, his own. Ireland was the country where the Roman Catholic population grew thickest, and to Ireland the royal eye was therefore turned as to the most favourable recruiting ground on which he could draw. It is also a matter of certainty that, in his desperate eagerness to overcome the Puritan menace, he was guilty of overtures with the Irish Roman Catholics which were neither dignified nor credit- able. The Earl of Antrim declared that the King had actually issued an authority to him and to Ormonde to seize Dublin Castle, and to hold it in his interests against the Parliament. 1 There is no reason to suppose that Antrim invented this statement, nor is there anything in the statement itself to conflict with what we know of Charles's character, or of the expedients to which he was ready to stoop in the hopes of propping up his tottering cause. It can easily be understood how, in Ireland, a commission such as this would be twisted round so as to fit in with the revolutionary schemes which had for years past been hatching. It is within the bounds of reasonable probability that the knowledge of this commission having been issued to Antrim (which Antrim one of the original conspirators would undoubtedly have communicated to his confederates) had first suggested to Sir Phelim the idea of carrying out all the bloody deeds on which he had set his mind under the protective aegis of a Royal Com- mission. It needed but a moderate exercise of imagination to extend the commission which the King had given to Antrim in respect of Dublin Castle to every other strong- hold of which Sir Phelim wished to possess himself. With the help of his secretary, Michael Harrison, he forged a commission purporting to come from the King, cut an imposing-looking seal off one of the documents found at Charlemont, and attached it to the forgery.* The fraud was afterwards admitted by Sir Phelim himself. There would be no need to go beyond this, were it not that in the face of Sir Phelim's admission of fraud writers such as J. P. Prendagast still try (by implication) to maintain the fiction that the Irish rose in the interests of Charles I. The fiction is shattered by one single, but 1 See Antrim Information, Appendix 49, Cox's Hibernia Anglican^. 8 garrison's evidence at trial of Sir Phelim, 1641] MR. LECKY'S WEAK ARGUMENTS 117 unassailable, fact. Charles was at war with the Scottish Covenanters. If the Irish rebels had directed their energies against the Scottish Covenanters in Ulster, some colour might have been given to the pretence that they had risen in the interests of the King ; but they did not. The Scottish Covenanters in Ulster were, on the other hand, exempted by public proclamation from molestation either in person or property, and all the bloody energies of the Irish, during the first week of the rising, were directed against the English Episcopalians. The second plea (even though supported by Mr. Lecky) falls to the ground for very similar reasons. Only in Ireland could the argument be advanced that, because the Irish feared an attack from the Scots, they were justified in exempting the Scots from molestation, but in massacring the English. Mr. Lecky, however, makes heroic efforts to convince himself that the argument, in a modified form, is allowable. He replaces the idea of a Scottish army, with a Bible in one hand and a devastating sword in the other, by the more abstract and plastic idea of the extirpation of Catholicism as a religion by the intrigues of the Puritan party. His words are : " It is, I believe, perfectly impossible to examine with any candour the evidence on the subject without arriving at the conclusion that the fear of the extirpation of Catholicism by the Puritan party was one cause of the rebellion in Ireland." One cannot doubt that these words express the honest convictions of the writer, but they fail to explain why if what he urges is correct the Puritan party in Ireland represented by the Ulster Presbyterians were addressed as " our loyal friends the Scots," while the non-Puritan English were stripped, robbed and massacred. And yet that such was the case cannot be contested. The exemption of the Scots was short-lived. The moment it became apparent that they were not going to look on tamely at the massacre of their English neighbours, but were arming and organising forces of resistance, the rancour of the Irish became even more bitter against the Scots than against the English, and the two nationalities were indiscriminately massacred where opportunity offered. The fact that the Ulster Scots were exempted under the original proclamation is very clearly established. 118 APOLOGETIC VIEW OF THE RISING [CHAP, m On the second day of the rising Sir Phelim O'Neil read out in the market-place at Armagh the commission which he had forged in the name of the King. This document purported to give him royal authority for seizing all forts and castles, " except the places, persons and estates of our loyal and loving subjects the Scots." 1 Colonel Audley Mervyn, afterwards Speaker of the House of Commons, and one of the royalist leaders of the Lagan Force, who went through the whole period of the rebellion and the subsequent war, tells us that, " in the infancy of the rising, the rebels made open pro- clamation that no Scot, upon pain of death, should be stirred in body, goods or land, and that they should to this purpose write over the lintels of their doors that they were Scots, and so destruction might pass over their families." 8 George Creichton, a Scottish minister, and one who tells us that he was originally spared at the instance of a friar named Gregory on account of his nationality, confirms this statement. In the face of such evidence, it is difficult to see how any responsible historian can support the fiction that the rebellion was in any part forced on the Irish by fears of extermination at the hands of the Puritan party. This idea, in its apologetic aspect, though put forward as one of many excuses at the time,* was not treated seriously till many years later, when it was unearthed and resuscitated for propaganda purposes. No better evidence on the subject of the real causes responsible for the rising can be looked for than that which is furnished by Lord Maguire's confession, made at a time when he had nothing to gain by any suppression or distortion of facts. His story is that, some months before the outbreak, Roger Moore, the father of the scheme, came to him, " and began to particularise the suffering of them that were the more ancient natives, as were the Irish [i.e., the native Irish]. How that in several Plantations they were all put out of their ancestors' estates. All which sufferings, he said, did beget a general discontent over the whole kingdom in both [classes of] the natives, to wit the old and new Irish. And that if the gentry of the kingdom were disposed to free them- 1 Hickson's Ireland in the Seventeenth Century. * Relation of Audley Mervyn. 3 See Remonstrance of Irish Roman Catholics, 1641] LORD MAGUIRE'S CONFESSION 119 selves furtherly from the like inconvenience, and get good conditions for themselves for regaining their ancestors' estates (or at least a good part thereof) they could never desire a more convenient time (the distempers of Scotland being then on foot), and did ask me what I thought of it." l Maguire goes on to say that Roger Moore told him he had sounded the gentry of the other three provinces and had found them in sympathy. " Then he began to lay down to me the case that I was in then, overwhelmed in debt, the smallness of my estate, the greatness of the estates my ancestors had, and how I should be sure to get it again, or at least a good part thereof. And, more- over, how the welfare and maintenance of the Catholic religion, which he said undoubtedly the Parliament now in England will suppress, doth depend on it. ' For,' said he, 'it is to be feared, and so much I hear from every understanding man, that Parliament intends the utter subversion of our religion.' " This confession of Maguire 's seems to leave the matter in very clear shape. The main cause of the rising was the discontent of the Irish upper classes at the curtailment of their estates and power. The year 1641 was after much delay chosen for the effort, because the King was embroiled in difficulties with Scotland, and because of the presence in Ulster of 6,000 trained native Irish soldiers originally destined to sail for Spain, but ultimately disbanded and left in Ulster. The eternal religious element was, as usual, introduced with the idea of con- solidating all Irish interests under a common banner. This had been the universal practice in every rising, great or small, in Ireland since the days of Con Bacagh. It is also worthy of note that the rising by the admission of Maguire, McMahon and others of its promoters had been conceived and planned many years before, at a time when the Puritan party was all too insecure to contemplate foreign crusades against the religion of a neighbouring island. As early as 1634 a priest named Emer McMahon, after- wards famous as Roman Catholic Bishop of Clogher, gave information to Sir George Radclyffe that a general insurrection in Ireland was in preparation.* Straff ord himself had a further warning in 1637.* 1 Lord Maguire's confession (Nalson, vol. ii. p. 544). 8 See Preface, Borlase's Rebellion. 3 Straff ord to Secretary Coke, August 15, 163?, 120 APOLOGETIC VIEW OF THE RISING [CHAP, in It is, perhaps, a consciousness of the weakness of his plea that prompts Mr. Lecky to use the word " Puritan " in place of " Covenanter " ; but it is common ground, which is not even questioned, that the Puritan army of invasion was to be wholly Scottish and commanded by General Leslie. 1 The same consciousness of weakness is probably responsible for his exploitation of a supple- mentary excuse for the rising, and for the horrors that accompanied it, in the bitter recollections cherished by the Irish of the many thousands of the preceding or penultimate generation who had been deliberately starved to death by Mount joy. This remarkable and ingenious excuse has little more value than the other, because it is based on a fiction. The famine of 1603, to which Mr. Lecky alludes, was of a very parochial extent, being practically confined to South-West Tyrone, South-West Antrim and North-West Down, or, in other words, to the districts under the immediate jurisdiction of Sir Arthur Chichester. In these districts Chichester undoubtedly did plan out and bring about a famine, which was respon- sible for some very horrid tragedies, described by Fynes Moryson in his Itinerary. East Antrim, however, was spared for purposes of supplying the Carrickfergus garrison, and South Down was out of Chichester's reach. It must also be borne in mind that, although the 1603 famine in East Ulster had been deliberately brought about by Chichester (at the instigation of Mountjoy) as a means of bringing Tyrone's long rebellion to a close, it was greatly aggravated by the depredations of certain Irish brigand chiefs, of whom the most prominent was Brian McArt, a nephew of Tyrone's and half-brother to Owen Roe. This illegitimate son of an illegitimate father, finding himself landless and penniless, had taken up brigandage as a means of subsistence. He started success- fully by murdering Cormac McBrian, Captain of Killutagh, and, with 500 bandit followers, established himself in the dead man's Castle, from which he was used to sally forth and scour the country round for grain or cattle, leaving the owners to starve. It was while returning from the suppression of this brigand that Chichester witnessed the horrid sights described by Fynes Moryson. 1 See Remonstrance of Irish Roman Catholics (Lodge's Desiderata Curiosa). 1641] MR. LECKY EXCUSES THE MASSACRES 121 The picture conjured up by Lecky of the native Irish being goaded to the perpetration of atrocities by the thought of their starved ancestors is particularly unfor- tunate in this respect, that, in the districts where the famine did occur, there were comparatively few massacres, thanks to the prompt measures for defence taken by the Antrim and Down colonists, while Co. Armagh, where the massacres were at their worst, was a county entirely untouched by the famine of 1603. So conspicuously was this the case that, when Mountjoy established the landless and penniless Henry McShane (Sir Phelim's great-grand- father) as a landed proprietor in Co. Armagh, he brought over a number of the O'Neil's people from the other side of the Blackwater into Co. Armagh, on account of the abundance of food supplies to be there found. The apologetic character of Mr. Lecky's treatment of the rising extends beyond the question of causes to the actual massacre itself, and in this field of investigation reaches some very grotesque lengths, and follows many crooked and devious tracks. For instance, he devotes much time to proving that there was no general massacre of the British during the first fortnight of the rebellion an uncalled-for waste of energy on the part of a modern historian, because it is common ground that there was not, nor has such a claim been put forward by any accre- dited historian of the last 150 years. Green, it is true, in his History of the English People,* makes some wild and ridiculous statements : as, for instance, that 50,000 English were killed in a few days ; but he does not go so far as to say that this was at the beginning of the rising. Mr. Lecky's object, however, in enlarging on a fact which is not disputed is plain. He is straining to make the point that the massacres when they did take place were acts of provoked retaliation, and, in some cases, genuine acts of war. In his eagerness, however, to prove that black is white he loses his judicial sense and becomes inconsistent. Here is a typical instance. He puts for- ward the extraordinary plea that the heavy losses which the Irish almost invariably sustained when they en- countered the colonists in the field were in the same category as the Irish massacres of defenceless and un- armed men, women and children, This was, in fact, the 122 APOLOGETIC VIEW OF THE RISING [CHAP, in doctrine which governed the Irish behaviour in 1641 and 1642, but it is hardly a doctrine that will commend itself to the Anglo-Saxon mind. The genuine encounters between armed forces, which took place in Ulster during 1641 and the spring of 1642, were between British agri- culturists and townsmen on the one hand, and the Irish native population on the other, both alike hurriedly called to the ranks by the crisis, and both alike ill-armed and ill-provided with the necessaries of war. The Irish were always numerically superior to their opponents, some- times enormously so, and they had the advantage of a nucleus of 6,000 thoroughly trained soldiers. In spite of these advantages, however, they were almost invariably unsuccessful in their armed encounters with the colonists. Up to July 1646, when at Benburb the Irish achieved a magnificent and well-merited victory over Monro, the only two successes they were able to register in Ulster, during the five years which had elapsed since the out- break of the rising, were at Garvagh and Bundooragh. On each of these occasions they claimed and probably with justice to have killed from 400 to 500 of the British. On every other occasion when the natives and the colonists met the former were defeated, not only with heavy IDSS, but without inflicting any corresponding injury on the British. To argue, however, that these losses justified the Irish in killing their non-combatant prisoners in cold blood, which was unquestionably their own view, is to take us back to the Stone Age. The climax, however, of Mr. Lecky's inconsistency is reached when after arguing for his own ends that the British losses in battle were infinitesimal he follows on with the astonishing statement that a large proportion of the British, reputed to have been massacred, actually fell in battle. Further evidence of a disinclination to face the truth is to be found in the way in which Mr. Lecky restricts his researches to those districts which were notoriously free from massacres. He points out with perfect truth, but with unnecessary insistence, that there was no general massacre in Antrim or Down ; but he omits to mention that the reason this was so was because, on the very first day of the rising, Colonel Chichester and Colonel Matthews rallied the British colonists in those counties into a defence 1641] MR. LECKY'S OBVIOUS BIAS 123 corps, which succeeded in affording protection to many thousands of the colonists in those two counties. The county which Mr. Lecky favours with the largest share of his attention is the county of Cavan, It can hardly have been by accident that he selected, as the field for his scrutiny into the realities of the massacres, the one county in Ulster where the better-class Irish steadily set their faces against the massacre of the British. " In the Co. Cavan," Ferdinando Warner writes, " there were fewer and less horrid cruelties executed than in any other county of the province of Ulster." This is the county to which Mr. Lecky restricts his researches. From his point of view he is wise ; but it at once becomes clear that, as a serious inquiry into the extent of massacres which mainly occurred elsewhere, Mr. Lecky's investiga- tions in Cavan have little value. Cavan was outside of the massacre zone. For many generations past the O'Reillys had been a century ahead of the rest of the Ulster chiefs in civilisation and manliness. All through the reigns of Elizabeth and James I Cavan had been the most loyal and progressive of the Ulster counties, and under Charles I it had maintained its reputation. Only one outrage of any magnitude stands to its discredit dur- ing the rising of 1641 1642, and that was perpetrated behind the backs of the O'Reillys, and called forth their unqualified condemnation. To the county of Armagh, on the other hand, which was the fountain-head of the rising, and where the massacres were at their worst, Mr. Lecky makes only one reference, and that is a misleading one. He refers to a very horrid incident in which twenty-four men, women and children were burned to death in the parish of Kilmore, and in an attempt to minimise the brutality of the deed suggests that it was " probably as the result of a siege." * The suggestion shows that, behind Mr. Lecky's friendly offices, is a genuine ignorance of facts. The scene of the burning in question was a thatched cottage where an old woman named Ann Smith lived with her children and grandchil- dren. The victims, mainly women and children, were driven into this cottage by a mob of hooligans, headed by a virago named Jane Hamskin ; after which the thatch > Lecky's History of England, vol. ii. chap. vi. 124 APOLOGETIC VIEW OF THE RISING [CHAP. lit was set fire to and finally fell in a blazing mass on those inside. 1 Such was Mr. Lecky's siege. In another passage he tries to scout the idea of a general massacre by quoting Audley Mervyn's statement that the Lagan Force, of which he was a member, rescued 6,000 men, women and children. This line of argument once more makes it clear that Mr. Lecky's investigation of his facts has been very superficial. The Lagan Force was specially formed to protect East Donegal, North and West Tyrone, and West Londonderry from the bloody incur- sions of the natives, and, owing to its prompt action and resolute attitude, many thousands of the British women and children from those parts were able to find their way in safety to Raphoe, Newtownstewart, Strabane, Derry, Coleraine, Castle Derg and Augher. We know that many of the 6,000 in question, referred to by Mervyn, were Fermanagh people, who, in the first instance, were rescued by Sir William Cole at Enniskillen, and by him were handed over to the Lagan Force, which conveyed them safely to the above-named places. 8 The services ren- dered by the Lagan Force to the scattered British were of a very remarkable nature. For nine years it acted as a protective force to the colonists of North-West Ulster, without meeting with a single reverse. Its unbroken record of victories, its astonishing mobility and incom- parable daring entitle it to rank as one of the most re- markable armed forces in history. That the Lagan Force, in combination with Sir William Cole, was instru- mental in saving many thousands of lives is unquestion- able, but unfortunately there were very many others whom it could not save. Audley Mervyn, from whom Mr. Lecky quotes as above, gave it as his opinion that, of those who were left in Fermanagh, not twenty escaped. " I can confidently affirm," he says, " that out of the county of Fermanagh, one of the best planted counties with English, I could never give an account of twenty men escaped, except, which is most improbable, they should fly to Dublin. As for the chiefest (my own estate meering upon the marches of that county) having enquired from prisoners by name for such and such, they have in- formed me they were all massacred." * For full details see p. 217. * See Vindication of Sir William Cole, Coll. of Tracts, British Museum. 3 "Relation" of Audley Mervyn. 1641] THE DEPOSITIONS 125 Mr. Lecky entirely ignores the summing up of Judge Donellan on the occasion of Sir Phelim O'NeiPs trial. This judge, himself an Irishman, made the positive state- ment, in his summing up, that 5,000 British had been massacred in the first three days of May 1642, as also that 680 had at different times been drowned, or other- wise killed, at Scarva Bridge over the Bann. As far as appears from the Records of the High Court of Justice in Dublin, Sir Phelim made no denial of these statements ; but, in justification, claimed that the May massacres had been provoked by Monro's severities at Newry. It is probable that, at the time of writing, Mr. Lecky had no knowledge of the existence of this document, otherwise his suppression of such a cogent piece of evidence is not easily to be excused. In other directions, however, he cannot claim an equal ignorance, nor can he be freed from the charge of wil- fully misleading his public. He quotes redundantly, for instance, from patriotic writers in substantiation of the cruel retaliatory acts of the British, but disallows as unreliable all similar evidence on the other side. This, no doubt, makes for popularity with a certain section of the English-reading public ; but it is not history. There can be no logical justification for accepting the hearsay versions of irresponsible writers as evidence, and for discarding as unreliable the solemnly sworn depositions of hundreds of eye-witnesses on the other side ; nor is it logical to argue that, because some of the depositions are obviously hysterical and exaggerated, they are to be discredited as a whole. There are thirty-two volumes of these sworn depositions in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, which describe sometimes in revolting detail the cruelties practised on the British colonists during the first eight months of the rising, i.e. before one-sided mas- sacre had been replaced by definite war. Even after many of these depositions, which have obviously little value as evidence, have been put aside, there still remains a mass of documents furnishing evidence as irrefutable as any on which history is built up. The depositions them- selves were sworn to before a commission of men specially selected for their high principles and probity. Mr. Lecky tries to minimise their value by pointing out that in some cases the words " taken upon oath " have been lightly 126 APOLOGETIC VIEW OF THE RISING [CHAP, ill erased with a pen. This in itself has no special signifi- cance, beyond furnishing prima facie proof of the meti- culous honesty of those before whom the depositions were taken ; and it should certainly enhance their value as evidence rather than diminish it. As a matter of fact, however, Miss Hickson, who has devoted more care than any other writer to the examination of the depositions, draws attention to the fact that, in every case where the words " taken upon oath " are erased, there stand at the foot of the documents the words " jurat pro nobis." Mr. Lecky's knowledge of these intensely interesting human documents, which he so lightly discredits, is very super- ficial indeed, and, in fact, Miss Hickson extracted from him an admission that he had never personally inspected them. 1 It is ,very clear, throughout his treatment of the matter, that his sole reason for trying to minimise the value of the depositions is because they paint the seven- teenth-century Irish a different colour from that which he would wish them painted. This is no doubt a well-meant effort, but it is not the way in which to wipe out ancient animosities. A far more disarming spirit is that of the Rev. Dr. O'Connor, an Irish Roman Catholic writer (quoted by Leland) who admits with no less common sense than honesty that : " Our ancestors were guilty of abomina- tions atrocious crimes to which the present generation, thank God, look back with all the horror and indignation they deserve." * Father Walsh, another Roman Catholic priest, no less honest, wrote to Ormonde in 1659 : " Your Grace knows with what horror the Irish nation looks upon the massacres and murders in the north committed at the beginning of the rebellion by the rascal multitude upon their innocent, unarmed and unprovided neigh- bours." > Honest and sensible admissions such as these, if universal, would tend more than anything to wipe out ancient feuds. Nothing disarms more effectually than admission of wrong. Unfortunately, so far from being universal, such admissions are of the rarest occurrence in patriotic circles. Such as make them are branded as traitors. Father Walsh was excommunicated for his honesty. In this childish refusal to admit error lies the 1 See Introduction to Ireland in the Seventeenth Century. 1 Hist. Add., pt. ii. p. 234. See The Irish Colours Folded and Tracts of Irish History from 1655-1 682. 1641] UNPOPULARITY OF TRUTH IN ICELAND 127 root of much evil. Truth is faced in the histories of other countries. In our own histories of England and Scotland it is faced, even when unpalatable. In histories of Ireland it is never faced. Not only is it not voluntarily faced, but when proffered it is railed at as an evil thing. Make-believe has so long held sway that truth arrives on the scene with all the aspect of an ogre. As a consequence, the real history of their country is a sealed book to the vast majority of the Irish. They neither ask for it nor is it given them. Mr. Lecky, it must be owned, seems from time to time to become conscious of the way in which he is sacrificing truth to sentiment, for he conscientiously pulls himself up with such qualifying admissions as : " There can, how- ever, be no real question that the rebellion in Ulster was extremely horrible, and was accompanied by a great number of atrocious murders." " It is impossible to doubt that murders occurred on a large scale, with appal- ling frequency and often with atrocious circumstances of aggravation " ; and yet again : " No impartial writer will deny that the rebellion in Ulster was extremely savage and bloody." * At other times his trained regard for truth forces from him damaging admissions, which he cannot in honesty suppress entirely ; but, even then, his irrepressible bias prompts him to clothe these admissions in so few words that their effect is as intended swamped in the mass of rhetoric on the other side ; e.g. he admits in one brief sentence that the greater part of the Drog- heda garrison whom Cromwell put to the sword were English, and having made this necessary concession to fact he enlarges on the horrors that followed on the assault in language which suggests to the careless reader that all the victims were Irish. This is not quite honest, but it is very typical of Mr. Lecky's treatment of all ques- tions affecting Ireland. There is a ceaseless suggeslio falsi, which can be plainly read between the lines, but always with a convenient loophole for escape tucked away somewhere in the text, on which he can fall back if challenged. One of the chief authorities on whom Mr. Lecky relies is the Rev. Mr. Clogy, the author of Bishop Bedell's life. Clogy was a prisoner in Co. Cavan throughout the rising, and was well treated. His point of view, in conse- 1 Lecky's History of England, vol. ii. chap. vi. 10 128 APOLOGETIC VIEW OF THE RISING [CHAP, in quence of his imprisonment, was very restricted, and re- stricted to the one county in which there were " fewer and less horrid cruelties than in any other county of the province of Ulster." Because this good cleric makes na mention of any particular massacres of which he was an eye-witness through his prison windows, Mr. Lecky seeks to deduce from his writings that there were no massacres. But here again he is not quite honest, or else a very super- ficial investigator, or he could hardly have overlooked the following passage written by the author from whose writings he deduces that there were no massacres : " After a morning Mass that bloody and unparalleled massacre commenced." * 1 Clogy's Life of Bedell. CHAPTER IV BETRAYAL OF THE PLOT THE short administration of Parsons and Borlase, prior to the rising, was remarkable for two acts of much-desired legislative reform. By the provisions of the first of these, known as the Act of Limitation, no title to land could be questioned where the owner, or his direct ancestors, had been in unchallenged possession for sixty years. This was, in effect, the most important of the original much- desired Graces. The second, known as the Act of Re- linquishment, abrogated the royal rights to plant with British certain escheated districts in Munster, Leinster and Connaught. 1 Both these Acts, but especially the second, were of supreme importance to the native section of the population. A third Act to the credit of the Lords Justices, and one which was little less popular than the other two, provided for the reduction of the outstanding subsidies from 45,000 each to 12,000.* It is a note- worthy fact that these three conciliatory Acts, all of which were of a singularly popular nature, were almost immedi- ately followed by the most sanguinary rebellion in the annals of Ireland. The gradual steps which led up to this rebellion were briefly as follows : A man named Rory O'More, better known as Roger Moore, had for many years been secretly planning an upheaval in Ireland, which would have the effect of ridding the country of the British and restoring the ancient order of things, which meant, in plain Eng- lish, the old rights of the Irish chiefs to a tyrannical sway over large tracts of country. Moore's preliminary negotia- tions had been mainly conducted abroad, where he had interviewed many expatriated Irishmen, including Owen Roe O'Neil. Having succeeded in interesting the Conti- nental Irish, Moore then returned to Ireland, where he communicated his scheme to a few influential leaders of 1 Sir John Temple's Rebellion. Ibid. 130 BETRAYAL OF THE PLOT [CHAP, iv opinion in Ulster, which was obviously the province chiefly interested in the expulsion of the British. The only Englishmen admitted to the secret according to Carte were the Earl of Mayo, Colonel Plunkett and Sir James Dillon. The details of the negotiations which fol- lowed, and which covered a period of two years, are given in full detail in Lord Maguire's lengthy confession. There would be little gained by a lengthy recital of all these details, which have been set out in most Irish histories. It will be sufficient to say that Maguire's chief arguments for striking in the year 1641 were: (1) The defeat of the King's army by the Scots at Newburn in August of the previous year, which seemed to indicate his military weak- ness; (2) his money difficulties, which put the raising of an efficient army beyond his means ; and (3) The pre- sence in Ulster of 6,000 trained Irish soldiers, only dis- banded four months before the outbreak of the rising. A further encouragement to strike at once was found in a promise, received in the spring of 1641 from Cardinal Richelieu, that help in the hour of need would be forth- coming from France. Even so, however, several post- ponements were found necessary, owing to unexpected hitches at home. The sudden death in Catalonia of Shane O'Neil (who styled himself Earl of Tyrone, and who was the intended figure-head of the movement) was a serious blow to the enterprise from the Nationalist point of view ; but the calamity was discreetly suppressed, and the movement pushed forward under the glamour of his name. There was some little doubt in the minds of the conspirators as to how the Lords of the Pale would behave, for, though these were allied to them in religion, they were racially antagonistic. In the end the Pale Lords undertook to join the rebellion after the first blows had been decisively struck, but they refused to have any part in the striking of these blows. 1 After several post- ponements, October 5 was the date fixed upon for the seizure of all the principal places in Ireland. This date, however, had like the others to be abandoned, as Sir Phelim O'Neil, whose allotted task in the general scheme was the seizure of Derry, pleaded that he was not suffi- ciently prepared. The final meeting to arrange details was held at 1 Lord Maguire's Confession. 1641] PLANS OF THE REBELS 181 Loughrosse, Tirlough O'NeiPs house in the Fews (Co. Armagh). Here, on October 5, Captain O'Neil, Emer McMahon (afterwards Bishop of Clogher), Sir Phelim O'Neil, Lord Maguire and Roger Moore met to make the final arrangements as to date, ^allocation of duties, etc. October 23 was finally fixed upon for the general rising, the idea being that, as it was a Saturday and a market- day, crowds moving along the highways would attract little attention. Dublin Castle was to be seized upon by 200 picked men drafted into Dublin for the purpose from various parts of Leinster and Ulster. Roger Moore and Colonel Byrne were to lead the Leinster men against the lower castle gate, while Sir Phelim and Lord Maguire attacked the upper gate with the Ulster contingents. Neither Sir Phelim, however, nor Maguire appears to have embraced this opportunity for distinguishing himself with any enthusiasm. The former excused himself on the grounds that his presence was needed at Derry. The latter, accord- ing to his own confession, tried hard to formulate some effective excuse, but, finding none ready to his mind, was at length prevailed upon to undertake the task assigned him. 1 When the appointed time arrived it was found that neither Sir Phelim nor Coll McBrian McMahon had sent up to Dublin the contingents he had promised, so that only 80 men were forthcoming instead of the 200 expected. In spite of this disappointment it was decided to proceed with the business, but, before the final steps could be carried through, the whole plot was shattered by the arrest of Lord Maguire, Hugh Oge McMahon, and some thirty others. This counter-blow appears to have effectually quenched the ardour of the remaining leaders, who were unwilling to attempt anything which was not in the nature of a complete surprise. There can be little doubt, however, that, had they prosecuted their attack with promptitude and vigour, they could easily have overcome any feeble resistance which the unprepared British were in a posi- tion to offer. The Dublin Castle garrison consisted of eight old men and forty ornamental halberdiers, used for State functions. 8 Over 90 per cent, of the Dublin popu- lation were Roman Catholics, and, as such, sympathetic with the revolt, and there was no military commander of i*Lord Maguire's Confession. z Carte's Ormonde. 132 BETRAYAL OF THE PLOT [CHAP, iv any capacity on the spot. In the vaults of Dublin Castle were 1,500 barrels of powder, and arms for 10,000 men, while in the Arsenal near the Riding School were thirty- five pieces of artillery. 1 But for the timidity of the rebels, there can be small doubt but that this great prize would have been theirs, and Ireland for many months to come would have been at their mercy. The prospect of opposition, however even though feeble and impromptu was too much for their resolution, and they allowed the golden opportunity to pass. The arrest of McMahon and Maguire was brought about by a curious chain of accidents. Sir William Cole of Enniskillen had been warned of the intended rising as far back as October 11, by Brian Maguire of Tempo in Co. Fermanagh. On the same day Cole forwarded the information received to the Lords Justices in Dublin, but these, in place of accepting his report as a serious warning, wrote back requesting fuller and further par- ticulars. These were sent later on, but the letter was un- fortunately intercepted, and the Lords Justices on hearing nothing further from Cole dismissed the matter from their minds. The surprise, then, would have been complete, but for the following chance incident. On October 19 a man named Owen O' Connelly, who was in the employ of Sir John Clotworthy at Moneymore in Co. Londonderry, received a message from Hugh Oge McMahon telling him to come at once to a place called Connagh in Co. Monaghan and see him with regard to a matter of urgency. O'Connelly did as instructed, but, on arriving at Connagh, found that McMahon had already left for Dublin. The next step (unforeseen and undesired by McMahon) was that O'Connelly followed him to Dublin. There can be little doubt that McMahon's motive, in sending for O'Connelly, was to warn him of the possible massacre which was impending, so that he and his family might take refuge in Coleraine or Carrickfergus. O'Connelly was a personal friend of McMahon's, but he was a Protestant and .was married to an Englishwoman, and was therefore more than likely to be among the victims. In any case, his wife and family would have been in grave danger. It was, however, no part of McMahon's plan that O'Connelly should follow him to Dublin. 1 Carte's Ormonde. 1641] BETRAYAL OF THE REBEL PLOT 183 O'Connelly arrived in Dublin about 6 p.m. on Octo- ber 22, and at once sought out McMahon at his lodgings in Oxmanstown, near the present Four Courts. Being in more or less of a dilemma at his unexpected appearance, McMahon walked with his guest as far as Lord Maguire's lodgings, but, not finding him at home, the two adjourned to the " Lion " in Wine Tavern Street, and there passed the time in drinking. Under the expanding influence of beer and spirits, McMahon told O'Connelly the whole story, under an oath of secrecy. After vainly attempting to dissuade McMahon from having any further part in the plot, O'Connelly left him and went straight to Sir William Parson's house, where he told his tale. Being very evi- dently drunk, he was not believed, but, as a precautionary measure, was sent back to McMahon to extract more detailed particulars. These instructions he attempted to carry out, but McMahon's suspicions were aroused by his reappearance and the questions he put, and he told O'Connelly he must remain with him till the morning. He was, however, not in a condition to enforce his own orders. O'Connelly managed to tumble over the fence into the road, and once more found his way to Parson's house. By this time he was so drunk that it was some hours before he could speak with any coherence. Even- tually he was taken to Sir John Borlase's house at College Green, and there he succeeded in convincing the Lords Justices of the truth of his story, and McMahon and Maguire were arrested, the latter being discovered hiding in a cock-loft. 1 O'Connelly was at once sent over to London as the bearer of the news he had already imparted to the Lords Justices, and was subsequently rewarded for his services by a gift of 500 and an annuity of 200.* He eventually took service under Sir John Clotworthy in Antrim, and was finally killed in a skirmish near Antrim. In spite of the arrest of two of the principal leaders, the danger of a forcible seizure of Dublin was by no means over. Borlase though a soldier by profession was too old and indolent to have any value as a military leader. Sir Charles Coote was sent for and appointed Governor of Dublin, with a commission to raise a regiment of 1,000 foot for the defence of the capital. 1 In this task his most * Carte's Ormonde. Ibid. Temple's Rebellion. 134 BETRAYAL OF THE PLOT [CHAP, iv fruitful recruiting-field was found among the starved and naked refugees, who were beginning to pour in from the north, and the horror of whose experiences later on drove them to some bloody acts of retaliation. Colonel Craw- ford, at the same time, was authorised to raise a regiment from among the British inhabitants of Dublin; but, in the end, he too had to fall back on " the stripped and despoiled English who came to Dublin for sanctuary." 1 Discouraged by the arrival of Coote, following on the failure of the original surprise, the Irish determined to abandon all idea of seizing the castle by force, and to rely on the slower, but safer, course of a blockade of Dublin by land and sea. All this time the Roman Catholic Lords of the Pale had preserved a strictly neutral attitude. This appear- ance of neutrality they successfully managed to maintain for a month. On November 27, however, came the news of the complete overthrow at Julianstown of a relief column, which had been sent to reinforce the Drogheda garrison, and the Pale Lords, taking this as an indication that fortune had at length definitely declared itself on the side of the Irish, no longer hesitated to throw in their lot with their co-religionists. The Earl of Fingall and Lord Gormanston at once declared themselves on the side of the rebels, and their example was quickly followed by Lords Howth, Louth, Dunsany, Netterville and Slane. On De- cember 9 these new recruits to the rebel cause established a camp at Swords, six miles from Dublin, and celebrated the occasion by seizing a provision ship which was lying in Clontarf Harbour. This triumph was but very short- lived, for Coote promptly swooped down from Dublin and recovered the stolen provisions. In spite of this counter-stroke, and in spite of several minor successes achieved by Coote and Crawford in the outskirts of Dublin, the position of both Dublin and Drogheda towards the end of December was precarious in the extreme. On the last day of the year Sir Simon Harcourt brought over the first contingent of troops from England, and with their arrival new hopes sprang up in the hearts of the handful of beleaguered British colonists. The outbreak and growth of the rising in Ulster may now be considered in detail 1 Carte's Ormonde, vol. i. p. 247. CHAPTER V DETAILS OF THE RISING IN ULSTER ON the evening of Friday, October 23, Patrick Modder Donnelly rode up to Dungannon Castle and asked Captain Perkins for leave to come in and look for some lost sheep which he suspected the garrison of having stolen. Perkins gave the required leave, and Donnelly and his com- panions then rode in and made instant prisoners of all inside, who were robbed of everything and stripped to their shirts, but not otherwise injured. While the Irish were busy collecting the plunder, Sir Phelim O'Neil ap- peared on the scene, and, having heartily jeered at Perkins for having been such a fool as to believe Donnelly, rode on to Mountjoy on Perkins's horse, which was a better one than his own. In the meanwhile, Neil Oge O'Quin of Donough- more had got possession of Mountjoy by a similar ruse, and was already in possession when Sir Phelim rode up. Before Sir Phelim appeared on the scene O'Quin had already shed the first blood of the rising, for he caused six people to be executed for upbraiding him with his treacherous conduct. One of them was a woman named Williams, and another was a very old man known as Ensign Pugh. 1 There is no evidence that Sir Phelim found any fault with O'Quin for these murders ; on the contrary, all the evidence is in the other direction, for O'Quin was very shortly afterwards installed as Governor of Mountjoy. Sir Phelim then rode on with a considerable following to Charlemont, which he reached between 10 and 11 p.m., and to which no news of the irregular proceedings at Dungannon and Mountjoy had as yet penetrated. Sir Phelim, who was a near neighbour and a personal friend of Lord Caulfield, was readily admitted to the Castle, 1 Dep. of Mr. Nicholas Coombe ; Dep. of Sir Wm. Brownlow. 135 136 DETAILS OF THE RISING IN ULSTER [CHAP, v and at once made prisoners of all within, some of Lord Caulfield's servants being killed during the process. 1 On the following day the rebel leader returned to his own house at Kinard (Caledon), but slept the night once more at Charlemont, which was two miles nearer the scene of his intended activities than his own house. On the 24th he rode into Armagh, where, in the market-place, he read aloud a proclamation adorned with a fine red seal which had been cut off one of the documents found at Charlemont, and sewn on to Sir Phelim's proclamation by his secretary, Michael Harrison. 3 This proclamation pur- ported to be a commission from the King which gave Sir Phelim authority for everything he did. He after- wards confessed that it was a forgery. There is a strong probability though it is still a con- tested point that Charles actually had, during the latter half of the previous year, given some sort of a commis- sion to Sir Phelim (as he undoubtedly had to the Earl of Antrim) to raise forces to help him against the parlia- mentary party in England and Scotland. This idea had been definitely abandoned with the disbanding of the Irish army at Carrickfergus in June 1641. The original negotiations, however although dead were sufficiently recent to enable Sir Phelim to twist them into a charter from the King giving him authority to prosecute his nefarious schemes against the Ulster colonists. Tremen- dous efforts, which did not stop short of the rack, were afterwards made by the parliamentary party to prove Charles's complicity in the rising, but without success. The waiving of the false commission may have deceived, but it certainly did not reassure, the British residents in the town of Armagh, who had heard of the doings at Mount joy and Charlemont, and who prudently withdrew to the Great Church, which they provisioned and fortified. This was the very last thing that Sir Phelim had either wished for or expected, for the church was a building of great strength, and almost as famous for its military as for its ecclesiastical records in the past. He made no attempt to take it by force, but returned to Charlemont, where he slept on the night of the 24th and 25th. The whole of Co. Armagh, with the exception of 1 Dep. of Mrs. Woodruffe; Dep. of Major Dory. 8 Judge Donellan's Address ; Examination of Dean Kerr. 1641] DRUMBOATE HOUSE 137 Lurgan, Lisburn and the Great Church in the town itself, was by now in the hands of the Irish. Newry had been betrayed into the hands of Sir Con Magennis (Lord Iveagh's uncle) on the first day of the rising. Sir Arthur Tyring- ham, the Governor, managed to effect his escape and reached Dublin safely on Sunday ; but Sir Edward Trevor, his son, and Sir Charles Poyntz were taken prisoners, and seventy barrels of powder and a number of arms fell into the hands of the rebels. On the same day Tan- daragee was taken by the O'Hanlons. Here, again, the Constable, Captain St. John, managed to escape by drop- ping over the wall, and made his way on foot to Lisburn. The county of Monaghan had fared little better than that of Armagh. The first notification of the outbreak in this county had been the seizure of Drumboate House, the property of Sir Henry Spottiswoode, who was away in Scotland at the time. 1 This was the work of Henry O'Neil of Glasdromin and of his sons, brother and nephew. Later on, when the massacres began, Henry O'Neil, who was the son of Tyrone's half-brother, Tirlough McHenry of the Fews, proved a good friend to the British in his district, and was instrumental in saving a number of lives ; but his retainers were clearly otherwise disposed, for one Paul Reid deposed that his wife and five children were killed by these retainers on the first day of the rising and within a mile of Glasdromin House. 8 Henry O'Neil, though averse to bloodshed, was not equally averse to plunder, for we are told that he stripped his absent neigh- bour's house of everything it contained, to the value of 4,000.' Apart from the case of Reid's wife and family, we know of no bloodshed which accompanied this burglari- ous enterprise, but Art Oge's son (Henry O'NeiPs nephew), on leaving Drumboate, gave indications of his temper in the matter by throwing back a parting shot to the effect that " this was only the beginning of things, for before they had done they did not mean to leave one alive, rich or poor, that went to church." 4 While Henry O'Neil and his kinsmen were thus engaged at Drumboate, Patrick McLoughlin McMahon was experi- encing equal success at Castle Blayney, which he surprised and seized without encountering any opposition. Here 1 Ferdinando Warner. * Judge Donellan's Address. ' Dep. of Paul Reid. Dop. of Richard Grave. 138 DETAILS OF THE RISING IN ULSTER [CHAP, v again the Constable, Lord Blayney, managed to make his escape to Dublin, which he reached at noon on the 24th, and where he added to the dismay that was already prevalent by his report of the disastrous progress of the rising in his county. 1 Lady Blayney was not so for- tunate as her husband, for she was captured together with her two sons, Edward and Richard, several members of the Cope family and all the Clotworthys resident in the immediate neighbourhood. These prisoners, with various others, were taken to Lord Essex's house at Carrickmacross, which earlier in the day had been attacked by a large party of the McMahons under Coll McBrian McMahon and being without any means of defence had been surrendered by the resident agent, Mr. Robert Branthwaite. No personal injury was offered to any of the inmates, but they were all stripped to their shirts and locked in as prisoners, while everything of value in the house was carried off. Mr. Branthwaite himself, at his own special request, was not lodged with the other prisoners, but was placed in the house of a friendly Irish- man named Edmund Burke. Here he remained well treated till March 3, when, by Coll McBrian's orders, he, together with his English servant, Anthony Atkinson, and his Irish servant Fahy, were sent under Burke's escort to Lady Slane's house and thence to Dublin. 2 The rest of the Carrickmacross prisoners were reserved for a very cruel fate. The Castle Blayney prisoners were lodged for the first night at Carrickmacross, and on the following day were taken on to Monaghan, where Lady Blayney and her two sons were confined in the Castle and the rest in the common jail. Monaghan had originally been captured by Neil McKenna McMahon, described as " a rude and barbarous young man," by the same ruse as that adopted by Donnelly at Dungannon, viz. by a petition to be allowed to hunt for lost property, and many were already in the small cell which acted as a jail when the Castle Blayney'party was thrown in, bringing the number of inmates up to forty- eight. Here they were allowed to lie for many days, quite unattended and under conditions of indescribable filth and misery. They were so closely packed that they had to lie one on the top of the other.' All would have 1 Bushworth. Dep. of Mr. Robert Branthwaite. 8 Dep. of Rev. George Cottingham ; Dep. of Rev. Henry Steele. 1641] GLASSLOUGH 189 died of starvation but for the kindly ministrations of Thomas Taafe, the Irish innkeeper of the place, who from time to time brought them such food as he could spare. The party in the Castle fared somewhat better, with the exception of poor Richard Blayney, Lady Blay- ney's second son, who, a fortnight after his capture, was taken out of the Castle by Art McBrian Savagh McMahon of Haslough and hanged in the orchard at the back of the Castle. 1 A man named Luke Ward was at the same time hanged on a neighbouring tree by Pat Connelly. The hanging of Richard Blayney was, we are told, an act of private revenge on the part of Art McBrian Savagh on account of the hanging of his brother three years earlier by Blayney's orders.* Sir Phelim, however, after- wards accepted responsibility for the act. The British colonists in Glasslough were completely surprised on the first day of the rising by the sudden entry into the town of a mob of Irish headed by Tirlough Oge (Sir Phelim's brother) and Neil McCann. Tirlough Oge at first tried to explain the invasion by pretending that they had followed the tracks of some sheep which they had lost as far as the town * ; but this pretence was soon dropped, and the aspect of the mob became so threatening that some fifty or sixty people took refuge in the house of Mr. Robert Berkeley, the cleric of the place, and a considerable landowner, while a similar number shut them- selves up in the Castle. Both these strongholds were approached, and negotiations entered into for their sur- render. Neil McCann interviewed Mr. Berkeley, while Tirlough Oge held a parley with Mr. Nicholas Simpson (joint M.P. for the county with Richard Blayney), who was in command of the Castle party. There was a com- plete absence of any powder in the town owing to the strict regulations, as to its issue, which had been inaugur- ated during Strafford's term of office ; and in view of the hopelessness of protracted resistance both places were yielded on condition that the lives of the inmates would be spared. It is gratifying to be able to record that Neil McCann faithfully carried out his promise. Mr. Berkeley himself was sent off to Enniskillen, to his father-in-law, Sir William Cole, and the rest of the inmates 1 Dep. of Michael Harrison. a Dep. of Hugh Culme. 8 Dep. of Mr. Nicholas Simpson. 140 DETAILS OF THE RISING IN ULSTER [CHAP, v of the house lived thenceforward under the personal protection of Neil McCann himself, who took up his residence in the house, and, for nine months, guarded his charges from all the horrors that were deluging the sur- rounding country in blood. In the spring of 1642 Sir Phelim himself visited Glasslough and urged upon McCann the extermination of his prisoners, but without success. 1 While McCann was thus engaged at Berkeley's house, Tirlough Oge, having stripped the town of everything of value that it possessed, succeeded in gaining admittance to the Castle after a lengthy conference with Mr. Simpson. As in McCann's case, Tirlough Oge guaranteed the safety of all within the walls, but unfortunately his guarantee did not prove equally effective. The British in the Castle were kept there for fourteen days, at the end of which time Tirlough Oge sent them all, with the exception of Mr. Simpson, off to Monaghan with the idea of lodging them in the jail. The jail, however, was found to be already packed far beyond its capacity, and Art McBrian Savagh, whom Sir Phelim had appointed Governor of Monaghan, sent them back again to Glasslough. At Glasslough they were not wanted ; Berkeley's house was already full, and Tirlough Oge had no wish to crowd up the Castle, of which he had taken possession, with a number of British prisoners. As the simplest way out of the difficulty, the wretched crowd of captives, of whom a large number were women and children, were sent on to Corbridge, where sixteen were drowned that evening (probably the men) and the remaining forty-five next morning. 8 Mr. Cottingham, the Rector of Monaghan, who was one of the party, and who relates the story (which is corroborated by Alexander Creichton, a prosperous farmer in the neighbourhood) was saved from sharing the fate of the others by the friendly intervention of Brian McHugh McMahon. He was afterwards sent to Drogheda in exchange for an Irish prisoner.* 1 Dep. of George Twelly, servant to Mr. Berkeley. 1 Dep. of Rev. George Cottingham ; Dep. of Alexander Creichton and M. Harrison. 3 These murders were in all probability carried out in accordance with direct orders received from Art McBrian Savagh, as is in fact stated in the deposition of Alexander Creichton. We may be quite sure that the humane Neil McCann would have had no hand in them, nor, from what we know of Tirlough Oge at this period, can we suspect him of complicity. Art McBrian Savagh, on the other hand, is described as a man 1641] CLONES 141 Tirlough Ogc remained in occupation of Glasslough Castle till he was appointed Governor of Armagh, when he shifted his quarters to that place, taking Mr. Simpson with him. On the same morning on which Tirlough Oge got pos- session of Glasslough, i.e. on October 23, Loughlin Duffey and Patrick McMahon murdered in the neighbouring village of Acrashannig fifteen British, among whom was Mr. Farmenie, who was dragged up and down by a rope for some time before his throat was finally cut with a skean. 1 At Clones the only people killed on the first day were Irish. This town, which was the property of Mr. Barret- Lennard, was entered early in the morning by Redmond McMahon at the head of 200 Irish, who started pillaging the town. On hearing the disturbance, Mr. Robert Aldridge and nine or ten of the British residents in the place took refuge in the Castle, where they found some ancient weapons with which they armed themselves. With these in their hands, they sallied forth and drove the mob out of the town. Three times was this performance repeated, three or four of the Irish being killed in the various encounters. Finally Redmond McMahon ap- proached the Castle and asked for a parley. He promised Mr. Aldridge and the others inside safety for their lives if they would return to their own houses and deliver up the Castle. This was finally agreed to, and McMahon took possession of the Castle, which he occupied from that time on, content for the moment to dominate the town and such of the British as remained in it. These, beyond being stripped of all their valuables, were not in- terfered with for the first month. At the end of November, who delighted in demoniacal cruelty (see examination of Nicholas Coombe). Judge Donellan, in his address at Sir Phelim's trial, gave the following description of a feast at which the Governor of Monaghan presided: " At Monaghan, at a great festival, what sport had they at their feast T An Englishman was laid before them on the board, and at every health they stabbed him with a skean. And they drink, and he bleeds, and they drink again, and presently, when he is all one wound, he is cast out on a dunghill." Art McBrian Savagh would naturally be embittered against the English, for apart from the hanging of his brother by Blayney already alluded to his father had been killed in open rebellion in 1609, and Fitz- william had executed his uncle Hugh Roe McMahon in 1 59 1 . Art Me Brian Savagh was generally supposed to be mad, and is said to have died quite insane. 1 Dep. of Margaret Farmenie ; Dep. of Margaret Laidlaw. 142 DETAILS OF THE RISING IN ULSTER [CHAP, v however, after the Irish defeat at Lisburn, and the general retaliatory massacres which ensued, Pat Connelly and Patrick Oge Maguire arrived one morning with a strong force of Irish and arrested twenty Englishmen, whom they imprisoned in the church. There they were kept for a week, in all probability till instructions as to their disposal had been received from headquarters. At the end of the week sixteen of the men were taken out of the church one night and hanged on the church gate. The other four had managed to effect their escape by climbing out of a small window set high up in the wall. One other man, and a woman who had just arrived in Clones with a letter addressed to Mr. Aldridge, were hanged at the same time. 1 Next day sixteen British women and children were drowned in a turf-pit near the town. 8 Mr. Charles Campbell, one of the many who deposed to the hangings on the church gate, actually had the withy round his own neck, but was saved at the last moment by Rory McMahon and his wife. Satisfied with the measure of vengeance exacted by these murders, the Irish appear to have left Clones alone for the next five months, but, at the end of April 1642, two Irishmen named John McHenry and Edmund McDonnel came to Clones and secretly warned Mr. Aldridge that, as the result of a meeting of all the Ulster leaders at Killeevan, a decree had been issued that all the surviving colonists in Ulster were to be killed forthwith. Upon receipt of this warning, Aldridge and thirteen of the other British from the town set out, in company with McHenry and McDonnel, for Enniskillen, which they reached in safety, and where the whole party including the two Irishmen stayed till the troubles were over. Of those who remained behind it is doubtful whether any escaped. The following Clones residents, in any case, fell in the general massacre : Robert Johnson, Ensign Flood and four servants, Roger Leitch, Edmond Leitch, Roger Edwards, his son and a servant, Robert Workman, his son and a servant of whom the latter was buried alive, 1 William Teddar, James Whitehead, Michael Allen, William Gilscross, George Whitaker, Thomas Whitaker, James 1 Dep. of Mr. Robert Aldridge. 1 Depositions of Francis Winn, James Gowen, Henry Beaumont, Honors Beaumont, Charles Campbell. 3 Dep. of John Montgomery. 1641] RORY MAGUIRE'S DINNER AT CREVENISH 148 Dungeon, Richard Bingham, Miles Acres, Thomas Sar- geant, Mongy Tibs, Henry Cross, Joseph Cross, Peter Madison, Sebastian Cottingham, James Birney, William Foster and John Netterville. The last named, who was proctor to the minister, was singled out for specially brutal treatment, being disembowelled alive. 1 In these May massacres the Scottish ministers, and all who were in any way connected with them, were treated with ex- ceptional cruelty, after having been so far spared. The reason for this sudden change of attitude towards the ministers will presently be apparent. In the county of Fermanagh, Rory Maguire of Castle- hasen, a dissipated young man of twenty-two and a brother of Lord Maguire, had, previous to the outbreak, made an attempt to facilitate the capture of Enniskillen and the other principal Castles in Fermanagh by inviting all their owners to a dinner at Crevenish Castle in the Barony of Lurgh, which had come into his possession through his marriage with the widow of Sir Leonard Blennerhasset. Maguire's intention was to seize the persons of all his guests on their arrival and hold them in ransom for the surrender of their several Castles. Sir William Cole of Enniskillen was one of the first to arrive at Crevenish in response to this invitation, and, as he dismounted, the man who took his horse whispered in his ear that he would have his horse ready in ten minutes. The hint, though vague, was sufficient, and Sir William promptly galloped off, keeping on the grass by the side of the avenue so as to deaden the sounds of his horse's hoofs. The other guests must clearly have had some similar warning, for they managed to break out in a body, regain their horses, and hurriedly made for home. 8 It may be that fury at the failure of this plot was in some measure responsible for Rory's subsequent conduct. In any case he stands out, from the very first day of the outbreak, as one of the most treacherous and inhuman ruffians that the rising was destined to bring to the surface. The county of Fermanagh should have been, even if it was not, in an especially favoured position with regard to the rising, on account of the early warning which Sir William Cole had received of the intentions of the 1 Dep. of James Geare. 1 Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 1894, vol. iv. 11 144 DETAILS OF THE RISING IN ULSTER [CHAP, v Irish. The first warning of the intended rising had come to him through Brian Maguire of Tempo on October 11, but further and more detailed particulars from the same source reached him on October 21, i.e. two days before the date fixed for the rising. It would appear that it was only after this second warning, which must have been subsequent to the Crevenish affair, that Cole began to realise the gravity of the situation. According to his own statement, he had no sooner received the second warning than he despatched eighteen horsemen to warn all the principal British centres in Ulster. This statement was afterwards challenged by Sir Frederic Hamilton, who denied that any message from Sir William had reached Derry (where Sir Frederic was at the time) and seriously questioned whether Sir William had succeeded in warning any single town in Ulster. Hamilton accused Cole of gross selfishness in having devoted all his energies to his own preservation, and in having neglected to warn his fellow countrymen in Ulster of the grave peril which threatened them. 1 Cole's reply was that he had no certainty of the intended rising till the 21st ; that he was cut off by forty miles of enemy country from the other British centres, and that his first duty was the protection of his neighbours and of the British agricultural population within reach of Ennis- killen. Nevertheless, he maintained his assertion that he had sent eighteen horsemen to carry the warning to every corner of Ulster. The controversy between the two knights became finally so acrimonious that their disputes were submitted to both Houses of Parliament, a fortunate cir- cumstance, which has furnished the historian with much valuable information. Sir Frederic Hamilton was, from all accounts, a man of somewhat brutal disposition and of an insolent and overbearing manner. He was universally unpopular with all parties, and his accusations against Sir William Cole may therefore, in part, be ascribed to jealousy and spleen. All the same, the incontestable fact stands out that none of the neighbouring centres, such as Glasslough, Clones, Newry, Tandaragee, Monaghan or Charlemont received any warning of the intended rising. All these places were completely taken by surprise, in spite i See Information of Sir Frederic Hamilton, Vindication of Sir William Cole, and Remonstrance of Sir Frederic Hamilton. 1641] COLE AND HAMILTON CONTROVERSY 145 of the eighteen horsemen whom Cole claimed to have sent out. Derry, Newtownstewart, Lisburn and Carrickfergus, and in fact all the northern centres which were able to put themselves in a posture of defence, received their warnings through other means than those of Sir William Cole, and in every case after the outbreak farther south had materialised. On the other hand, Cole's dispositions for defence in the immediate neighbourhood of Enniskillen were praiseworthy in the extreme. The scattered British colonists from the country round, to the number of several thousands, were safely gathered into Enniskillen. From among the able-bodied men collected in this way, Cole was able to raise, and partially arm, nine companies of foot and a troop of horse. 1 As to the women, children, and old men, he claimed that " he did rescue from the rebels 5,647 English and Scottish Protestants, and relieved them for many months out of the spoil taken from the enemy, until that, in his own person, he guarded and conveyed them towards Derry," * handing them over half-way to the charge of the Lagan Force, who escorted them in safety the remainder of the way. It would seem as though Rory Maguire who, as Lord Maguire's brother, assumed charge of affairs in Fermanagh from the start contented himself on the 23rd with mur- dering isolated families more especially in the neighbour- hood of Markane and Lowtherstown. At the latter place Anne Blennerhasset tells us that Rory first hanged her son-in-law, Thomas Redman, and then cruelly tortured Mrs. Redman to make her confess her money. Having succeeded in his purpose, he then murdered Mrs. Redman and all her children.* The providential warning which the British in the county of Fermanagh had received of the intentions of the Irish, though it prevented anything in the nature of a surprise of the more important Castles, by no means offered com- plete checkmate to Rory's plans. He easily overcame the initial disadvantage under which he laboured in comparison with the neighbouring counties by assuming the r61e of the personal friend and neighbour forced by circumstances to appear as a political enemy. That he was on terms of 1 On July 1, 1649, 500 of these men were taken into parliamentary pay ; the remainder were disbanded. a Answer and Vindication of Sir Wm. Cole. Dep. of Anne Blennerhasset. 146 DETAILS OF THE RISING IN ULSTER [CHAP. V intimate friendship with all the British gentry in the county is proved by their general acceptance of his invi- tation to dine at Crevenish. He was Member of Parliament for the county of Fermanagh, and was moreover' married to an Englishwoman of considerable means. 1 Early on the morning of the 24th Rory commenced playing his part of the friendly neighbour. The first place which he approached was Shannoth House, near Clones, the property of Mr. Arthur Champion, Member of Parlia- ment for Enniskillen. There was clearly no opposition offered on this occasion by the inmates, and various indica- tions point to the fact that Maguire gained admittance by assuming the r&le of a friendly mediator. Once inside, how- ever, he quickly discarded this attitude, and came out in his true light as a cold-blooded butcher of inoffensive country neighbours. He started by hanging Arthur Champion and his brother Thomas, and followed this up by murdering in a variety of ways Thomas Iremonger, Humphrey Little- bury, Christopher Lynch, John Morris, Hugh Williams, Henry Cross and James Cross, and twenty-four others who are not named. No women or children were killed on this occasion, but they were all stripped to the skin, after which some few were kept as prisoners and the rest turned out naked into the cold. 8 In addition to the evidence of Mrs. Champion as to this ^outrage, we have the testimony of John Cormack, a local Irishman, who, in his evidence at Sir Phelim's trial, swore that " the next day {i.e. 24th] Rory Maguire marched away and killed and destroyed most of the English that were in those parts, murdering Arthur Champion, Esquire, and many more." * From Shannoth, Maguire went on to Waterdrum, which was not reached till 12 o'clock at night. The lateness of the hour, however, was no deterrent to Maguire, who at once signalised his arrival by killing Thomas and John Adams, Joseph and William Berry, and Sarah Brent, the last-named, who was about to become a mother, being ripped open with a skean. Ellen Adams and her daugh- 1 Lady Blennerhasset's estate was worth 900 a year (Ulster Journal of Archaeology). * Dep. of Mrs. Champion. Thomas Iremonger was flung on to a wooden table and his head chopped off with a hatchet in the presence of his wife and children. See An Accompt of the Bloody Massacre in Ireland. 3 Dep. of John Cormack. 1641] RORY MAGUIRE'S TREACHERY 147 ter escaped with their lives, but were both cruelly mutilated. 1 On the following morning Maguire rode to Lisnaskea, " where he desired in a friendly manner to speak with Master Middleton, who had the keeping of the Castle. The first thing he did when he entered therein was to burn the records of the county, which he forced him to deliver unto him, as likewise 1,000, which he had in his hands, of Sir William Balfour's, which as soon as he had he compelled the said Middleton to hear Mass, swear never to alter from it, and immediately after caused himself, his wife, and chil- dren to be hanged up, and he hanged and murdered a hundred persons at least besides in that town." * The news of the above bloody deeds had by this time reached the ears of the colonists on the south side of Lough Erne, and a number of these banded together for defence under the leadership of Mr. Cathcart, the Sheriff. For a time they were able to stave off an attack in the open, but the overwhelming numbers of the Irish finally forced them to the shelter of Enniskillen, where they joined Sir William Cole's defence force.* In pleasing contrast to Rory Maguire's treachery and cruelty was the courage and loyalty of his uncle, Brian Maguire, of Tempo. Although this good man had successfully warned Sir William Cole, it appears that he was by no means in the full confidence of the rebels, and, in fact, only learnt of the intentions of the Irish by the chance remark of a priest who was visiting him.* His good services did not stop short at warning the colonists, for one of his first acts was to garrison Roger Atkinson's house in Coole with a number of his own men, who success- fully protected that Servitor and all his people from peril. 5 Such conduct did not by any means please Rory, who came to Tempo and threatened his uncle with death if he did not swear to join them. Brian was granted three days in which to make up his mind, and he wisely took advantage of the opportunity to make his escape to Enniskillen, where he remained thenceforward. His son, Hugh, joined the rebels. Brian's depositions as to the massacres are of 1 Dep. of Ellen Adams. Dep. of Sir John Dunbar, J.P. The murder of victims in this case IB probably exaggerated. 3 "Relation" of Audley Mervyn. * Dep. of Brian Maguire. 6 Information of Sir Fredeno Hamilton. 148 DETAILS OF THE RISING IN ULSTER [CHAP, v unique value owing to his nationality and to the closeness of his relations with those responsible for them. After the tide had turned and the ministers of vengeance were abroad not always in the mood to discriminate nicely Sir William Cole was able to requite Brian's services by protecting him, and some fifty or sixty of his tenants, from the fury of the avengers. On the whole, Fermanagh may be considered as one of the most fortunate counties in Ulster, on account of the early warning which it had received, and of the protecting strength of Enniskillen Castle, which in combination with Ballyshannon just over the border was able to shelter several thousands of the British from the fury of Maguire's cut-throat bands. John Cormack's estimate was that the total number massacred in the county of Fermanagh did not exceed 764. CHAPTER VI THE REBELLION IN CAVAN THE position in Co. Cavan differed essentially from that of any other county in Ulster. The difference was due in the main to the more humane and civilised conduct of the O'Reillys, who set their faces from the start against anything in the nature of cold-blooded butchery, and who faithfully kept all compacts made with beleaguered garri- sons within the limits of their jurisdiction. The object of the O'Reillys was admittedly to clear their county of all the British, and to confiscate all British lands, money, plate, valuables, and even clothes, but to do so as far as possible without bloodshed. With this intention before him, Philip McHugh O'Reilly, of Ballinacarrig, the Member for the county, rode into Belturbet early on the morning of the 23rd, and publicly made the announcement that the Irish had risen, that Dublin Castle and all the principal strongholds in Ireland were in their hands, and that all English were at once to leave the country or suffer death. While Philip McHugh O'Reilly was thus engaged at Bel- turbet, his nephew, Mulmore O'Reilly, High Sheriff of the county, rode to Farnham Castle, the property of Sir Thomas Waldrum, who was away at the time, and there possessed himself of everything the Castle contained, including com- plete sets of arms and armour for forty men, with which he proceeded to equip his retinue. 1 Philip O'Reilly's announcement at Belturbet created, as may be supposed, the most prodigious excitement. Bel- turbet, which was reckoned to contain no fewer than 1,500 British,* was by far the most thickly populated colony in the county, and on that account had been selected by O'Reilly for his proclamation. From this centre the news spread out far and wide, and, as the day advanced, news came across the border of Rory Maguire's butcheries in * Pep. of Arthur Culme. "Relation" of Henry Jones, D.D, 150 THE REBELLION IN CAVAN [CHAP, vi Fermanagh, and the agitation of the British was corre- spondingly increased. Public opinion was quickly divided. On the one side was the pacifist party, strongly in favour of compliance with O'Reilly's terms, and on the other hand the war party, which was for resisting the insolent demands of the Irish to the last gasp. The aims of the latter party were strengthened by the arrival of an express messenger from Sir Francis Hamilton, of Keilagh (Castle Hamilton), urging all the Belturbet British, as they valued their lives, to arm themselves and concentrate for resistance. This advice was vehemently seconded by Captain Ryves, who was stationed in Belturbet in command of a troop of thirty horse ; and with such good effect did he plead that, when Philip O'Reilly returned to Belturbet in the evening, he found the townsmen brandishing such weapons as they had been able to get together, and greatly inclined towards armed resistance. To this excited throng O'Reilly ad- dressed smooth and literally disarming words. He assured them that Rory Maguire's murders in the adjoining county were contrary to the understanding arrived at by the various Ulster chiefs prior to the rising. He assured them solemnly that, if they would give up their arms to him, he would undertake to protect them all from Maguire's fury, otherwise he warned them that he could not answer for their lives. 1 To these apparently friendly overtures the bulk of the British finally yielded and handed in their weapons, whereat Captain Ryves, in great disgust, washed his hands of the Belturbet British and their affairs, and rode off with his thirty men to Ardbraccan, where he took up his quarters in the Bishop of Meath's Castle.* No sooner had the British given up their arms than the Irish fell upon them and stripped them to the skin. The disillusioned colonists bitterly reproached O'Reilly .for his breach of faith, and called upon him to protect them, as he had promised to do, from the robbery and violence of his followers ; but he replied to the effect that the people were so out of hand that he could do nothing with them, and advised them, if they would save their lives, to make for Dublin with all speed. It would appear that it was not till the morning of the 25th that the Belturbet refugees set out. Mr. George Creichton, who was a prisoner in Virginia, Co. Cavan, 1 Ferdinando Warner, p. 75. * "Relation" of Henry Jones, D.D. 1641] PLIGHT OF THE CAVAN REFUGEES 151 deposed that on that day he saw " 440 stripped refugees come through Virginia, some of them sore wounded. Afterwards many more came from about Ballyhayes, and afterwards 1,400 from Belturbet." l This would seem to fix the exodus from Belturbet at not earlier than the 25th. As to the other batches seen by Creichton we know nothing. O'Reilly had told the Belturbet people that they might take any goods they liked with them.* This, however, as it turned out, was merely a device to make them produce such valuables as they had hidden, for, when the pro- cession was a short distance beyond the town of Cavan, it was once more set upon by a mob, which, Nathaniel Hig- ginson in his deposition says, was not composed of Cavan men, but of invaders from Fermanagh. That there was considerable bloodshed on this occasion is certain. All were for the second time robbed and stripped to the skin. A man named Adam Glover, who was one of the party, after- wards swore that no less than thirty were killed. His deposition was to the effect that " he observed 30 persons to be most barbarously murdered, and about 150 more cruelly wounded, so that traces of blood, issuing from them, lay upon the highway for twelve miles together. And many very young children were left and perished by the way, to the number of sixty or thereabouts, because the cruelty of the rebels was such that their parents and friends could not carry them farther." 3 The hardships endured by those who succeeded in reach- ing Dublin were very severe. The weather was intensely cold for the time of year, and, in their naked condition, many contracted diseases from which they never recovered. Their plight on arriving in Dublin was little less pitiable than it had been on the journey, for the city was hopelessly overcrowded. During the first, ten days of the rising a constant stream of starved, wounded and naked wretches flowed into the metropolis, where there was no adequate shelter available. They were housed, as far as circum- stances would permit, in the churches ; but, even so, the accommodation afforded was far short of the demand, and numbers had to lie about in the streets. Many went mad. 1 Examination of the Rev. George Creichton. * Dep. of Mr. Parker, Rector of Belturbet. 3 Dep. of Nathaniel Higginson; Dep. of Adam Glover. 152 THE REBELLION IN CAVAN [CHAP, vi " Multitudes," we are told, died. New pieces of ground had to be opened for their burial. The grave-diggers could not keep pace with the mortality, and the number of unburied bodies generated new and strange diseases. 1 In the meanwhile, the more venturesome spirits, who had not joined the caravan to Dublin, but had elected to remain in Co. Cavan, were undergoing an unpleasant ordeal. Some 200 of them had taken refuge in the house of William Bedell, Bishop of Kilmore. 8 This remarkable man was held in universal reverence on account of the saintliness of his life, and it was hoped and with justice that his house would prove a sanctuary, which none would violate. Here the refugees remained in security, but great discomfort, till the latter half of December, when Edmund O'Reilly of Killnacrot and his son Mulmore rode up one day and told them that they were no longer safe, and must make immediate preparations for a journey to Dublin. This warning, as it afterwards turned out, was issued on account of the insensate fury of Sir Phelim and Rory Maguire after their defeat at Augher in Co. Tyrone. Both had issued orders for wholesale massacres. Sir Phelim's orders were carried out by proxy, but Rory conducted his retaliatory massacres in person. Except for the friendly warning of the O'Reillys, the inmates of the Bishop's house would have run a very grave danger of sharing the dreadful fate of the refugees in Lisgool, Tully and Monea. Warned in time, however, they set out towards the south. On the first night Mulmore sheltered them all at his own house at Cavet, and the following morning forwarded them on their road under the guidance and protection of a friendly priest, who did his utmost to protect them from the ferocity of the natives, but without complete success. The Bishop himself, with his son Ambrose, Richard Castleton, a car- penter, and Mr. Edward Parker, the Rector of Belturbet, were taken to Arthur Culme's Castle in Lough Oughter, now in the hands of the rebels, where they joined the late owner and his wife and children as prisoners. Here they were placed in charge of Owen McTirlough O'Reilly, a humane and considerate man, who did all he could for his captives. Many of the windows in the Castle, however, 1 Temple's Rebellion, Kilmore, in Co. Cavan, not to be confused with the parish of the same uame in Co. Armagh. _, 1641] DEATH OF BISHOP BEDELL 153 had no glass, and the cold winds off the lake proved too much for the strength of the old Bishop, who became very ill. On January 7, after a successful sally from Keilagh Castle, in the course of which some O'Rourkes and O'Reillys were taken prisoners, the Bishop was ex- changed for Philip O'Reilly, uncle to Philip McHugh, and was then removed to the house of a friendly Irish- man named Denis Sheridan, who was a Protestant con- vert ; but he had contracted ailments from which he never recovered, and on February 7 he died. His funeral, which was of a semi-military order, was attended by Edmund O'Reilly, his son Mulmore, and by several of the Sheridans of Co. Cavan. 1 With the departure of Captain Ryves, Belturbet had been deprived of the last of its trained soldiers. In the town of Cavan, however, Captain John Bailey had com- mand of a company of fifty foot-soldiers, of whom half were Irish. With these he shut himself up in the jail, which was the strongest building in the town ; but, being very short of provisions, he was in no condition to endure a sustained siege, and on October 29 he surrendered to the O'Reillys. He and his men were well treated. The rank and file were stripped of their arms, but Bailey himself and a few of the principals were allowed to retain their arms for self-protection, and to live at large in a small thatched cottage in the town. 8 From this precarious position they were soon after relieved by Sir Francis Hamilton, who sent out a reserve party from Keilagh Castle under the command of his son Malcolm, David Creichton and James Somerville, who brought Bailey and his companions safely in. The achievements of Sir Francis Hamilton of Keilagh, and of Sir James Craig of Croughan, furnished excellent illustrations of what could have been done all over Ulster, had the British been given time to concentrate at suitable places of strength. Whether or not Hamilton and Craig had been warned by Sir William Cole is not clear, but the strong probability is that they had, for otherwise it would have been impossible for them to have collected the numbers who found refuge within their castle walls. i Dep. of Arthur Culme ; Dep. of Ambrose Bedell. Ambrose Bedell tella us that his father had lent over 1,000 to various members of the O'Reilly and Sheridan families. I ' Relation" of Henry Jones, D.D. 154 THE REBELLION IN CAVAN [CHAP, vi The warning, however, must have arrived very late, for it was not till the evening of the 23rd that Hamilton was able to pass it on to Belturbet. The Castles of Keilagh and Croughan stood about a mile apart, with the village of Killesandra between, and with one of the innumerable ramifications of Lough Erne separating one from the other. Both Castles proved harbours of refuge for all the British families in their neighbourhood. By the time the first attack came, there were collected within the walls of Keilagh no less than 286 able-bodied men and 700 women, children and old men. Croughan, which was smaller, was able to accommodate 120 able-bodied men and 340 women, children and pld men. The first attack on the two Castles came from Edmund O'Reilly, at the head of an army of 2,000 men, composed in equal parts of men from Cavan and Leitrim. His first attempt was on Croughan, as being the weaker of the two ; but he was repulsed with the loss of fourteen men. Encouraged by the ease with which he had beaten off this formidable array, Sir James Craig managed to send a messenger across to Keilagh suggesting that, on the night following, a simultaneous sally should be made from both Castles. To this Sir Francis Hamilton agreed. " Whereupon," Mr. Clogy tells us, " they fixed all their scythes upon long poles, and, being very scarce of ammunition l (though they had guns enough), they resolved to sally forth out of both their Castles and to make a resolute assault upon the enemy's camp on a frosty night ; which they did perform with such irresistible courage and good success that they made such foul work and havoc among them, that such persons as were not cut in pieces or mangled with these terrible weapons, were either taken prisoners or forced to run away and leave their camp as it was." To this account of Mr. Clogy's, Dr. Jones adds the information that thirty- seven of the Irish were killed in the sally, and that three of the O'Rourkes, viz. Loughlin, Brian and Owen, together with Philip O'Reilly, uncle to Philip McHugh, 1 Under Strafford's rule no one Castle or fortress was on any account allowed to have more than 10 Ib. of powder. As a consequence of this rule, none of the beleaguered Castles had any store of ammunition. The rebels, on the other hand, by surprising Newry, had, at the outset, secured 70 barrels. 1641] O'REILLY REPULSED FROM KEILAGH 155 were taken prisoners. Shortly afterwards, on January 7, these four important prisoners were exchanged for Bishop Bedell, his two sons, and Mr. Thomas Price, Archdeacon of Kilmore. The failure and defeat of Edmund O'Reilly so disgusted his son Mulmore, the High Sheriff, that he registered a resolve to show how much better he himself could conduct operations. He accordingly got together a formidable force of 3,000 men, which included 300 from Westmeath, at the head of which he marched to the attack of the two defiant Castles. Sir Francis went out to meet this new enemy in the open, but he was forced back by weight of numbers into the Castle, apparently without loss. Nothing more was done that day, but the next morning the Castle was assaulted by a party of picked men, who as an encourage- ment were made very drunk with whisky. All the leaders remained prudently in the background, at which we are told that the men, not unnaturally, murmured loudly. The assault proved a miserable failure. One hundred and sixty-seven of the Irish were killed, and Mulmore having fared no better than his father withdrew his forces, after driving away all the cattle belonging to the Castle. This loss, however, was quickly made good, for the garrison organised a raid into Leitrim, which resulted in the capture of forty cows and 200 sheep. As a result of the repulse of the rebels from Keilagh, we get a glimpse of the first of those horrid acts of retaliatory murder with which it became the habit of the Irish to seek consolation for their defeats in the field. According to Dr. Jones, the massacre in this case was organised by Mulmore himself, out of spleen at his defeat, but the version given by William Gibbs is more probably the correct one. This man was not only present on the occasion of the massacre, but he himself narrowly escaped being one of the victims. Gibbs's story, too, is practically corroborated by the deposi- tion of Peter Kirby. According to these two, the whole business was carried out, without the knowledge of the O'Reillys, by two of the Mulpatricks and a man named Philip O'Togher. These men, with the usual mob at their heels, entered Belturbet and started proceedings by hanging James Carr and Timothy Dixon; but, finding this process of execution too slow, and possibly being afraid of interruption, drove the remainder of their victims 156 THE REBELLION IN CAVAN [CHAP. VI to the bridge over the Erne, and from there forced them with pikes and swords into the water. Most of the victims were women and children, the only men whose names appear being Samuel the hook-maker, John Jones, and Samuel and William Carter. The latter's wife, with two children and two grandchildren, were drowned, as were also Gamaliel Carter's wife and children, the widow Philips, Edward Martin's wife and two children, the two children of John Jones, the widow Mundy, Anne Cutler, and the widow Staunton with two of her children and four of her daughter's children. In all thirty-five were drowned, and two men were hanged. 1 Gibbs himself actually had the rope round his neck, and was on the point of being thrown off when he was saved by the opportune arrival on the scene of Donnell O'Reilly. Gibbs, who was a butcher by trade, was kept from that time on to work for the Irish, who, from the moment of the outbreak, refused to do any sort of work for them- selves. Many craftsmen, who would otherwise have perished, were for this reason kept alive, and later on proved invaluable witnesses as to massacres of which they were the sole survivors. Peter Kirby deposed that, after the slaughter at Bel- turbet was over, Philip McHugh O'Reilly arrived in the evening and freely cursed the Mulpatricks for the bloody part they had played, warning them that God's curse would surely come on the country for their cruelties. To this they sulkily replied that they had his own warrant for all that they had done. The truth was that Philip McHugh, who was himself inclined to humanity, was afflicted with a very cruel and bloodthirsty wife. This woman, known as Rose ny Neil O'Reilly, constantly affirmed that she was never well for twenty-four hours after she had seen an Englishman or a Scotchman, 2 and her ceaseless clamour was for the total extirpation of every human being of British blood. More than once we are told that her husband threatened to put her away for her brutalities ; but the evidence suggests that, in the end, her will-power and suggestive influence were not without their effect on O'Reilly, for we learn that his feelings 1 Dep. of William Gibbs, Robert Bennet, Joan Killin, Peter Kirby, William Worth, Richard Smith and John Whitsor. * Dep. of Marmaduke Batemanson. 1641] THE BELTURBET MASSACRE 157 towards the British underwent such a change that at one time he kept his nephew, Philip McMulmore O'Reilly, shut up for a month as a prisoner in his house at Ballina- carrig on account of his too great friendliness towards the British. 1 Philip McHugh's mother, on the other hand, who was known as Catherine Oge, and who was descended from the Campbells of Argyle, was a good friend to the British, and helped many in their extremity. 1 There can be very little doubt that the authority, which the Mulpatricks claimed to have received for the Belturbet massacre, came from Rose ny Neil in her hus- band's name, as indeed Marmaduke Batemanson definitely stated in his evidence. The evidence of this and other witnesses makes it clear that the majority of the massacres of British during the Irish rising of 1641 were actuated by motives either of cupidity, of fear, or of revenge. The first- named of these was unquestionably the main motive in the earlier stages of the rising, when many of the British were first tortured to extract from them the secret of where their money was hidden, and afterwards killed so as to prevent any subsequent disputes as to ownership. The second motive was mainly responsible for the massacres through- out the middle stages of the rebellion, when many of the able-bodied British were killed to prevent the possibility of their joining the various defence forces, and the last- named, viz. revenge, or rather the desire to compensate for defeats in the field by a corresponding slaughter of British prisoners, was the motive at the back of all the later and more comprehensive massacres. There is no doubt that the Belturbet massacre, the date of which can be accurately placed at the end of January 1642, belonged by rights to the third class. Rose ny Neil, we may be sure, was grievously mortified by the successive defeats of Edmund and Mulmore O'Reilly before Keilagh Castle, and doubtless shared with many others the belief that the disgrace could be wiped out by a corresponding massacre of non-combatants. In this case the instruments of destruction ready to her hand were found in the relations of those who had fallen in the fighting outside Keilagh and Croughan. This point 1 From a paper found by Nalson in the office of the Clerk of the House of Commons. 1 Examination of Rev. George Creichton. 168 THE REBELLION IN CAVAN [CHAP, vi is clearly established by the statement of the Rev. George Creichton, who deposed that, at the same time that the Belturbet massacre was taking place, his own house in Virginia was broken into by a party of the McCabes armed with skeans, who announced their intention of killing all within the house on account of the losses that their sept had sustained in the fighting outside Croughan. This intention according to Mr. Creichton they would undoubtedly have carried out, but for the intervention of Hugh McJames O'Reilly, who asserted his authority and turned the McCabes out of the house. The cowardly system of avenging losses suffered in fair fight by the butchery of non-combatants was the primary cause of all the horrors that were destined to fall upon Ulster during the next twelve years. Philip McHugh was in a prophetic mood when he warned the Mulpatricks that God's curse would surely come upon the country for the Belturbet massacre. The first shadow of the curse fell only too soon. Many of the men-folk belonging to the Belturbet victims were members of the Keilagh and Croughan garrisons, and these when they heard of the cold-blooded slaughter of their wives and children swore that henceforth they would give no quarter to any Irish of whatsoever sex. 1 In immediate retaliation, they made a joint raid into the adjoining county, each garrison keeping to its own side of the water, in the course of which Hamilton's men killed thirty-nine of the natives and Craig's men fourteen. We have no evidence as to whether any of the victims of this raid were women or children, but the strong probability is that this was so, for the raid was before all else an act of revenge for the massacre at Belturbet. The whole incident is instructive as showing how wave upon wave of brutal reprisals can be set in motion by the first violation of the laws of humanity and fair dealing. After his first repulse from Keilagh, Mulmore made no further attempt at an assault, but tried to starve the garri- son out, and to prevent any communication between the two Castles. With this end in view, John O'Reilly, w T ith a strong force, was posted at Brady's Bridge, and Mulmore himself at Ballyhillian Bridge. These tactics soon suc- ceeded in reducing the British to great straits. They were 1 "Belation" of Henry Jones, D.D, 1641] SIEGE OF KEILAGH AND CROUGHAN 150 compelled to send out foraging parties three times a week, and, the longer the siege lasted, the farther had these for- aging parties to penetrate, with a corresponding increase of danger to those employed. On April 8 Sir James Craig succumbed to the hardships endured, and Lady Craig survived him only a few weeks. 1 Sir James was buried in Killesandra churchyard, but the Irish dug the body up again and cut it in pieces. 8 Ambrose Bedell, the Bishop's son, and Thomas Price, Archdeacon of Kilmore, who had been exchanged for the two O'Rourkes, then assumed command, but the garrison was by this time sorely weakened by famine and disease Out of the 460 originally enclosed within the walls, 160 had already died as the result of bad and insufficient food. The water supply was outside the walls, and the Irish threw dead dogs into it. The garrison, in an effort to overcome this trouble, dug wells inside the walls, but the water so obtained was muddy and unwholesome. In Keilagh, where there were more to feed, conditions were even worse, and actually famine reigned. Horses and dogs were eaten, and even the old hides intended for leather were used as food. Sir Francis Hamilton himself and his wife (a daughter of Sir Charles Coote) were both ill, but their son Malcolm and Sir Archibald Forbes, a youth of seventeen, took up the duties of active leadership in their place. On April 22 these two determined that matters had reached such a pass that desperate remedies were called for. Accordingly, a sortie was made with as many men as could be spared, accompanied by a number of the more active women and children. Sixty cows were captured, which the women and children drove in, while the men protected their flanks from the attacks of the enemy. The operation as may be supposed was not carried out without violent opposition, but all the cattle and their drivers were eventually brought safely in. We are not told what the losses of the garrison were in the fight, but the Irish afterwards informed Dr. Jones that they themselves had lost 45 men, of whom 14 belonged to the Magauran sept. 5 This fresh supply of meat saved Keilagh for the moment, but, after the siege of Drogheda had been raised, all the 1 Clogy's Life of Bedell. * Dep. of Ambrose Bedell, a " Relation " of Henry Jones, D.D. 12 160 THE REBELLION IN CAVAN [CHAP, vi Cavan men who had there been engaged returned home and swelled the investing forces, which with the addition of these reinforcements exceeded 5,000. Both Castles were now completely invested, and fresh supplies in con- sequence became unobtainable. At the beginning of June Hamilton made an offer of surrender. It was agreed that the two garrisons should be allowed to confer as to the terms which they were prepared to accept. Sir Francis Hamilton and Sir Archibald Forbes thereupon went across to Croughan, where they held a long conference with Ambrose Bedell and Thomas Price. Philip McHugh and Mulmore were then called in, and the following proposition was made to them : All the inmates of both Castles were to be escorted to Drogheda by a sufficient body of troops, under the personal conduct of Philip McHugh, Philip Mc- Mulmore and Mulmore O'Reilly, and they were to march away with all their arms and with colours flying. To these terms the O'Reillys agreed, and on June 15 a formal capitulation was made. Nearly 800 persons came out of Keilagh and some 300 out of Croughan. Castleton and Culme, who had remained prisoners in Lough Oughter Castle after the Bedells and Price had been exchanged, and 140 others who joined them on the way, swelled the numbers of the convoy, which occupied seven days in reaching Drogheda. The women and children were very weak from want of food, and could only travel slowly. All slept out in the open without cover of any sort. 1 On the approach of the convoy to Drogheda, Sir Henry Tichborne, with three troops of horse, came out and met the refugees. Courtesies were exchanged with the three O'Reillys, and the proceedings terminated. If others in Ulster had acted in the same honourable and straight- forward spirit as the O'Reillys, the history of the next ten years would have been very different. 1 Clogy's Life of Bedell. CHAPTER VII THE POSITION IN DOWN AND ANTRIM WHILE Armagh and the three southern counties of Ulster were looking about them in helpless indecision, Antrim and Down were behaving in a far more manly and resolute fashion. These two counties made it clear, from the very start, that they believed in working out their own salvation and leaving as little as possible to chance. At 6 p.m. on October 23 a tired British horseman rode into Lisburn, and, making straight for the Bishop of Down's house, told him of the capture of Dungannon and Mount- joy. The Bishop at once despatched a letter with this disquieting news to Lord Montgomery, who was at Coomber Castle in the Ards. The horseman bearing it rode with such good -will that Montgomery received the news at nine o'clock that night, and at once sent out his own messengers to spread the alarm. The horseman who carried the news to Carrickfergus took with him at the same time a letter from Montgomery to the King urging the despatch of immediate help. Just about the same time that Montgomery was reading the Bishop's letter, Sir Arthur Tyringham struggled into Lisburn with the news of the loss of Newry, and the Bishop sent off a second messenger, on the heels of the first, telling of the spread of the disaster. All through the night of the 23rd horsemen galloped here and there about the two eastern counties, carrying the warning to the principal British residents. Before daybreak beacon fires were blazing on the more prominent hill-tops, and drums were summoning the colonists to assemble and defend them- selves. In response to the summons, the farmers and labourers came trooping in from all sides, armed with scythes, pitchforks and other agricultural implements. With the break of dawn, fresh messengers arrived bidding 161 162 THE POSITION IN DOWN AND ANTRIM [CHAP, vn the different groups concentrate on the following day at Belfast, where further orders would be issued. The Irish, in the meanwhile, had as yet taken no active measures for offence in that part of the world, their chief local representative, Sir Con Magennis, being for the moment too fully occupied in the capture and plunder of Newry, farther south. This failure to strike at the eastern counties on the first day was, as things turned out, a fatal tactical error on the part of the Irish. It was no doubt in part traceable to the hope that the special dispensation extended to the Scots, which had been publicly proclaimed, would have had the effect of disarming the fears of the Antrim and Down men who were practically all Scots and of lulling them into the position of passive onlookers. In this hope the rebel leaders were doomed to serious disappointment. On Monday the 25th, in conformity with the summons issued, Colonel Arthur Chichester a son of Lord Chi- chester and a nephew of the famous Lord Deputy Colonel Arthur Hill of Hillsborough, Sir Arthur Tyringham, Sir Thomas Lucas, Captain Blount, Captain Armstrong and Captain Edmonstone, each at the head of his local con- tingent armed with a strange and varied assortment of ready-made weapons, rode into Belfast. 1 In the absence of Lord Montgomery, Colonel Chichester assumed the command. The latter had brought with him from Carrick- fergus all the arms which could be spared (after leaving there a garrison of 300 men under Captain Linden) and these arms were now distributed as far as they would go among the assembled colonists. After two days spent at Belfast in properly apportioning the men among the various leaders, Chichester moved on to Lisburn, where according to arrangement he was joined by Lord Montgomery. This important place had been saved at the very outset of the rising by the courage and energy of Mr. Robert Lawson, a merchant belonging to Derry, who happened to be stay- ing in Belfast with his father-in-law, Mr. Barr, when .the Bishop of Down arrived with the news of the loss of Dun- gannon, Charlemont and Mount joy. This was of course prior to the concentration of Chichester's men at Belfast, so that there was as yet no organised resistance. Lawson at once made up his mind to fill the Bishop's place and 1 Carte. 1641] DEFENCE OF LISBURN 168 undertake the defence of Lisburn. He was fortunate in finding a most able Lieutenant in a local resident of the name of Forbes. Before leaving Belfast, these two found in the Castle seven muskets and eight ancient halberds, which was all they were able to raise in the way of profes- sional arms. Lawson and Forbes managed to get together 160 men from round about Belfast, the greater part of whom were armed with pitchforks, and, with this small but determined force, they marched during the night to Lisburn, from which place all the inhabitants had fled. Lawson's first step was to secure all the available cattle, which were driven into the courtyard of the Bishop's house, which Lawson and Forbes occupied. Following on this prudent step, he disposed his 160 men to the best advantage possible, and awaited the attack which he knew must shortly come. On the following evening, Sir Con Magennis, flushed with his recent success at Newry, appeared before the town with a large force bent on further conquests. Had he attacked the place forthwith the results to the little half-armed garrison must have been disastrous, but Lawson by the diplomatic use of lighted candles distributed here and there about the town managed so thoroughly to deceive his adversary as to the numbers of the garrison, that he was afraid to attack. 1 On the following day Chichester and Montgomery arrived with the bulk of the force which had been assembled at Belfast, and Sir Con without a suspicion of the magnifi- cent opportunity which he had lost withdrew towards Dromore. The combined British force available for Belfast and Lisburn now numbered 1,000, of whom about one half were armed ; but the discipline, we are told, left much to be desired, as every man did that which seemed right in his own eyes, and only obeyed orders when convenient. At Dromore, farther south, the news of the rising had reached Colonel Matthews, the resident officer, late on the night of the 23rd. Nothing was done till the following morning, when Matthews, with a small party of the British residents mounted on ponies, rode out in the direction of Newry, with a view to investigating for himself how matters stood. Near the Bann a body of about 600 Irish was observed, but Matthews was too weak to attack, and * " A Relation, etc." Hamilton MSS. 164 THE POSITION IN DOWN AND ANTRIM [CHAP, vn having noted their position he returned to his post. During the afternoon he and Captain Crawford, another resident in Dromore, worked with the energy born of necessity and succeeded in getting together from the town and surrounding district a force of 80 foot and 100 horse half of them armed with whom they rode out next morning in the direction of the Bann. The Irish force seen the day before had not moved ; Matthews at once attacked, and with such success that he routed it with the loss of half its number. 1 Fully satisfied with this, InVfirst trial of strength, Matthews returned to Dromore ; but he was not destined to remain long in peace, for during the following evening a spy came in with the announcement that several hundred of the Irish were hiding in the scrub outside, with the intention of surprising the town during the night. Matthews wisely determined to attack rather than be attacked, and, riding out while it was still light, surprised those who would have surprised him, and defeated them with considerable loss. 2 On October 28 Chichester, with 300 of his Lisburn force, marched to Dromore, which he found practically deserted by all except the habitual residents. The impromptu defence force raised by Matthews had very soon wearied of soldiering, and, in the false sense of security inspired by their two successive victories, had thrown discretion to the winds and had dispersed in all directions in search of loot and adventure. Chichester stayed one night in Dromore, but next day on learning of the approach of a force of 1,500 Irish under Sir Con Magennis he left the town to its fate and withdrew once more to Lisburn. It is difficult to excuse, or even to account for, this excess of prudence on the part of Chichester, and the result to those left in the town was far from pleasant and might easily have proved disastrous. Sir Con Magennis, however, and his brother Daniel Magennis of Glasroe, were both reputed humane and reasonable men, and at Dromore no atro- cities were practised on the townspeople, who were, how- ever, robbed of everything and stripped of their clothing. Chichester possibly ashamed of his desertion of the town came back on November 1, with a much stronger force ; but Sir Con did not think fit to await his coming, and withdrew once more with all his forces to Newry. 1 Carte. ? Ibid. 1641] ACTIVITY OF THE ANTRIM COLONISTS 165 The main difficulty so far experienced by the British leaders had been that they had no State commission to raise troops, and consequently the men's prospects of pay- ment were extremely uncertain. Payment carries with it authority and the power to punish, but, without payment, there can be neither the one nor the other, and discipline is consequently non-existent. The British had willingly banded together for self-protection in the first hour of danger, but the easy discomfiture of the enemy on every occasion when they had so far met had the effect of making them underrate the danger, and overrate the loss which they were sustaining by the neglect of their farms and other business. After Chichester's second visit to Dromore and the disappearance of the enemy, it was found impossible to keep the men any longer together, and they dispersed to their various homes. Hardly had they done so before a commission arrived from the Lords Justices in Dublin, authorising Colonel Chichester and Sir Arthur Tyringham to raise a regiment apiece to be maintained at the expense of the State, and ten days later came an authority from the King for Lords Montgomery, Sir James Montgomery of Grey Abbey and Sir Robert Stewart each to raise a regi- ment on the same terms. 1 At the same time, the King sent arms for the equipment of 1,500 men. These royal com- missions were afterwards repudiated by the Lords Justices, on the ground that they had not been authorised by the Parliament, with the result that many of the regiments con- cerned got no pay from any source, and had to maintain themselves as best they could. The famous Lagan Force was mainly self-supporting during the nine years that it kept the field. Another self-supporting regiment of agricultural volunteers was raised by Mr. Archibald Stewart in the Ballymena district, chiefly from among the Earl of Antrim's tenants. Stewart, who was Antrim's agent, got warning of the rising from Colonel Rowley at Coleraine during the night of October 23, and on the following day, being Sunday, he rode to the church at Dervock, where he publicly an- nounced the news. Within a few hours he had raised a volunteer force of 800 men. Some of these were at once detached for the defence of Stewart's own house at Ballintoy and others were put as a garrison in Oldstone Castle near 1 Carte. Nalson says these commissions were from the Lords Justices; but Carte, in this instance, is probably the more correct. 166 THE POSITION IN DOWN AND ANTRIM [CHAP, vii Clough, these being the only two buildings in the neigh- bourhood which were at the same time roomy enough to accommodate a number of refugees and substantial enough to resist any ordinary attack by assault. Robert Fullerton was placed in command of the former, and Walter Kennedy of the latter. Of those of Stewart's regiment that remained a considerable proportion were Roman Catholic Highlanders from the Route, and there was, in addition, a strong con- tingent of Irish from the Bann side The former formed themselves into a company under James McCollkittagh McDonnell, while the latter placed themselves under the command of Tirlough Oge O'Cahan. Both Chichester and Montgomery warned Stewart of the grave danger of in- cluding such unreliable material in his defence force ; but his confidence in James McDonnell was so unshakable that he declined all advice in the matter. James McColl- kittagh, as a matter of fact, as well as his brother Ala- stair, were only in the enjoyment of their liberty owing to the friendly intervention of Archibald Stewart. Both brothers who had been in Ireland only a short time were arrested the moment they landed from Scotland on account of the dangerous reputation which they bore ; but, owing to the strong representations made on their behalf by Stewart, they had been set at liberty. 1 Very dearly was Stewart destined to repent his friendly action. The effect of the repudiation by the Lords Justices of all commissions issued by the King was that though there were various self-supporting defence corps dotted about the country the only official regiments in Ulster, at the time, were Chichester's and Tyringham's both newly raised under commission and Sir William Stewart's regi- ment, which had been on the official roster prior to the rising. In view of the remarkable achievements of the latter regiment (which formed part of the Lagan Force) in the face of tremendous odds, it is interesting to note that, shortly before the outbreak of the rebellion, this regiment had been given a fortnight's extra drill by Ormonde for inefficiency. 4 The effective strength of these regiments was very much reduced by the need for garrisoning the more important strongholds in North Ulster. Antrim Castle, with its small flotilla of Lough Neagh boats, was 1 McSkimmin's History of Carrickfergus. 1 Radclyffe's Straff ord. 1641] DISPOSITIONS FOR DEFENCE 167 placed in charge of Sir John Clotworthy, while small garri- sons, under the command of Captains Upton and Agnew respectively, were placed in Norton Castle and Larne Castle. Five hundred men under Colonel Matthews were left in Belfast to act as a mobile force, which could be quickly directed to any danger-point, and the small balance was sent on to supplement the Lisburn garrison, which was no'w under the joint command of Captains Dines and Burley, Mr. Lawson having returned to Derry. CHAPTER VIII THE SIEGE OF DROGHEDA THE most important event during the first seven months of the 1641 rising was unquestionably the siege of Drogheda, and although these pages are by way of dealing mainly with Ulster matters, this siege, and the events nearer Dublin which led up to it, are so inextricably bound up in Ulster affairs that it is impossible to pass them wholly by. Dundalk and Ardee had passed into the hands of Coll McBrian McMahon of Balloghie at the beginning of Novem- ber, without a blow being struck in their defence. Drogheda ran an appreciable risk of sharing the same fate, but it was saved by the energy and promptitude of Lord Moore of Mellifont. When the rising first broke out, the govern- ment of Drogheda was in the hands of a weak and incom- petent man, inaptly named Sir Faithful Fortescue. The garrison consisted of two companies only, of whom half were Irish. There was, therefore, practically only one company of English troops to defend the place. There can be little doubt that the town would have shared the fate of Newry and Dundalk but for the energetic action of Lord Moore, who managed to raise sixty horse from among the British residents round Mellifont, and, with this impromptu force at his heels, galloped the three miles to Drogheda. Once within the walls, he took over entire control of operations within. His first act was to requisi- tion four guns and powder to match, which were found on a merchant ship lying at anchor in the river Boyne. These he transferred to the town and planted on the Mill Mount, after which he set the townspeople to work to repair all the weak places in the walls. 1 The town being then in as good a position for defence as circumstances admitted, Lord Moore himself rode off to Dublin with the idea of laying before the Lords Justices the extreme insufficiency of the garrison and the vital necessity which existed for prevent- i Carte. 168 1641] TICHBORNE SUPERSEDES FORTESCUE 169 ing Drogheda from passing into the hands of the rebels. The Lords Justices, as it turned out, were much too con- cerned over their own safety and that of Dublin to waste much thought over the perils of any town farther afield. All that Lord Moore could get them to agree to was that he should be accompanied to Drogheda by one Captain Gibson, who carried from the Lords Justices a commission to enroll a company of the Drogheda townsmen at the expense of the State. Accordingly next day Lord Moore and Gibson rode back to Drogheda, where a new company of 120 men was enrolled, and as well equipped as the meagre armament of the place would admit. Fortescue ex- pressed himself very dissatisfied with the arrangements made by the Lords Justices, and, with more prudence than decency, turned his back for ever on Drogheda and made his way to Dublin. Fortescue's extreme pessimism, and the fact that he had deserted his post, seem to have at last convinced the Lords Justices that energetic action was called for. Sir Henry Tichborne was appointed Governor in Fortescue's place, and, on November 3, set out for his new command at the head of a specially raised regiment of 1,000 Dublin townsmen, of whom we are told that 700 were English Protestants. 1 Drogheda was as yet very imperfectly invested, and the reinforcements reached their destination without encountering any opposition. The fact of all these communications passing between Dublin and Drog- heda without interruption convinced Sir Phelim that Coll McBrian McMahon was too old and lethargic for his post and that he himself had better conduct operations in person. Accordingly he moved down from Newry, which he had made his headquarters during the first half of November, at the head of 1,300 men, with which to supple- ment the investing force. His first venture ended success- fully, for he was able to capture the old Cistercian Mon- astery of Mellifont belonging to Lord Moore. This event was brought about as follows : When Tichborne had taken over command of Drogheda he (very unwisely as it would seem) detached twenty- four musketeers and fifteen horsemen to garrison Melli- font. This little garrison Sir Phelim attacked with the full strength of his force. A stubborn defence was put up till the i Carte. 170 THE SIEGE OF DROGHEDA [CHAP, vni garrison's ammunition was exhausted, after which the horsemen cut their way through to Drogheda, and the mus- keteers surrendered on promise of quarter. According to Carte, this promise was not kept, and several were killed after surrender in revenge for the death of Captain Owen McMahon, who had been killed during the attack; but the point is not clearly established. Content apparently with this small triumph at Mellifont, Sir Phelim abandoned his personal designs upon Drogheda and returned to Newry. It is conceivable that, before leaving, he did make sugges- tions that resulted in a better disposition of the force investing Drogheda, for, before the month was out, the Irish had achieved the greatest victory that they were des- tined to register till the date of Benburb five years later. Tichborne had proved a man of very different calibre from his predecessor. He was as brave and energetic as the other had been timid and irresolute. Even to Tich- borne, however, it appeared clear that the place, with its great length of half-ruinous wall and its existing garrison, was incapable of resisting anything in the nature of a deter- mined attack. It was a matter of common knowledge that half of those within the walls were ready to go over to the other side at the first opportunity, and even the garrison could not be counted upon to a man. Tichborne wrote to Dublin pointing out the weakness of the situation, and begging for the prompt despatch of reinforcements. Refugees were by now beginning to arrive in Dublin in great numbers from all the country around, and, in view of the extreme difficulty of housing and feeding all of these, it seemed desirable to employ some of them elsewhere, if possible. Many were already enrolled in Sir Charles Coote's regiment and in the Dublin defence corps, but the employment of these did not sufficiently relieve the con- gestion. It was therefore decided to enroll a force from among these refugees for the immediate relief of Drogheda. Dublin Castle had plenty of weapons in store ; the difficulty lay in finding able-bodied men to use them. The majority of the refugees were half-starved, and shattered in health and nerves by exposure. They were not of the material from which a relief force would be selected under ordinary circumstances. However, the circumstances were very far from ordinary, and the best had to be made of such material as offered. Six hundred foot and fifty horse were even- 1641] BRITISH DEFEAT AT JULIANSTOWN 171 tually mustered, the former being under the command of Sergeant-Ma j or Roper, and the latter of Sir Patrick Wemys. On November 27 the relief force set out on its march, and word was sent to Tichborne warning him of its ap- proach. On receipt, of the news Tichborne advanced some way out of the town to meet his reinforcements, according to arrangement ; but, as these failed to put in an appearance, he returned to Drogheda. The fact was that Roper's men being very weak from previous privations proved quite unable to march the distance agreed upon, and did not arrive at the meeting- place till twelve hours too late. 1 In the meanwhile the Irish had interposed, between the relief column and its objective, a force of 3,000 men, in- cluding five troops of horse, of which three, we are told, were equipped with lances and two with pistols. They had two field-pieces, and were commanded by Roger Moore, Colonel Bryne and Philip McHugh O'Reilly. In the thick fog of early morning Roper's column suddenly found itself confronted by this formidable array. The only man who did not lose his head was Sir Patrick Wemys, who offered to charge the enemy forthwith if the foot would undertake to support him. This was agreed to, and Wemys headed his fifty men for a charge which, if carried to a conclusion, would have put Balaclava completely in the shade ; but the moment he set his handful of horse in motion the foot without even once firing their muskets threw down their newly acquired arms, and either ran away or surrendered. 2 Stupefied by this unexpected conduct on the part of the infantry, and realising the use- lessness of his unsupported effort, Wemys wheeled his men to the right, and made his way to Drogheda, which he reached without the loss of a man. Roper's, Cadogan's and Townley's companies of foot also appear to have found their way to Drogheda, though by what supernatural agency is not clear ; but the rest were all killed, except such as were Irish.* The Irish secured a great prize in the way of arms and ammunition by their victory at Julianstown, and an immense stimulus was given to the rebellion generally, and more especially to the prosecution of the Drogheda siege. As a result of the event, the number of those investing the place was said to have risen to 20,000. i Carte. Examination of the Rev. George Creichton. Carte. CHAPTER IX ARMAGH UNDER SIR PHELIM's RULE ON November 1 Art Oge Magennis, Oghie O'Hanlon and Toole McCann, at the head of about 1,000 men, bore down on the village of Lurgan, stripped and plundered all the inhabitants, and killed about a dozen or fifteen people, among whom were John Davis, Richard Ridsdale, Thomas Ward, Leonard Riggs, Thomas Howber, James Horsley, Thomas Jackson, James Tanner, John Rogers, Giles Calvert and Mary Sadler. The Castle was then summoned to surrender, and this summons was eventually yielded to by Sir William Brownlow, on condition that all within the Castle, and all the residents in the village, should be given a safe conduct to Lisburn. Carte says Brownlow held out for a fortnight, and this may possibly be so, but it is quite certain that Brownlow himself makes no such claim in his deposition. Whatever may have been the actual date of the surrender, the conditions attached to it were not observed by the Irish. All within the Castle were stripped, some were killed after surrender, and the rest were sent as prisoners to Armagh, where many of them were afterwards killed in the great May massacres. The leading spirit in all the murders committed was Toole McCann. The villagers were allowed to proceed on their way to Lisburn, but, half-way there, they were again attacked and stripped, and some of them killed. 1 There always has been, and there always must be, a certain amount of mystery about this Lurgan affair. It seems almost incredible that, after nine days of rebellion, during which many very bad murders had been committed (though nothing as yet in the way of a general massacre, the British villagers should not have taken shelter within the walls of their protective Castle, as those in other parts 1 Dep. of Sir William Brownlow, Henry Ogle, William Code, James Bradley, Alexander Gill and Robert Pearson. 172 1641] SURRENDER OF AfcMAGH CHURCH 173 of the country had done. It also seems very extraordinary that, if isolated Castles like Keilagh and Croughan, with practically no powder and cut off from any hope of succour, could hold out for months, a Castle so favourably situated as Lurgan being as it was within a few miles of the British stronghold of Lisburn should at once give in. Sir William Brownlow afterwards pleaded, in justification of his action, that he had no arms, ammunition or food. Other accounts, on the other hand, say that Colonel Chichester had, shortly before, sent him three barrels of powder from Carrickfergus, which on the face of things is highly probable. It is also very difficult to understand why if Sir William Brownlow did not intend putting up any fight he had not previously withdrawn to Lisburn. All the circumstances connected with this curious surrender are mysterious and unsatis- factory, and all the more so on account of the singular reticence on the subject of the man principally concerned. From Mellifont Sir Phelim had returned to Newry, where it is believed he had a conference with Rory Maguire. Whether as the result of this conference, or for other reasons, he went on the following day to Armagh, where the British were still holding out in the Great Church. To these people he now made a specific offer. He under- took that, if they would give up the church, he would guarantee that they should continue to live in their own houses under his personal protection. This undertaking he swore by all the most sacred oaths in his vocabulary to carry out faithfully, offering, if need be, to sign the under- taking in his own blood. 1 The inmates of the church, who appear to have reposed full confidence in the undertaking of so prominent a magnate as Sir Phelim, after some de- bate, accepted the terms offered and opened the doors. Nothing of a sensational or tragic nature followed. Such as belonged to the town returned quietly to their homes, where, for the next five months, they lived their ordinary lives without hindrance. 2 The country residents in the near neighbourhood also found thei? way back unmolested to their old homes, but such as came from Loughgall were marched back to that parish > under escort, professedly for the purpose of protecting them from the violence of the country people. On arrival at Loughgall they were 1 Examination of Mr. Nicholas Simpson. a Dep. of Archie Simpson and Mrs. Beare. 174 ARMAGH UNDER SIR PHELIM'S RULE [CHAP, ix locked in the church, where they were left unmolested for forty-eight hours. For the details of the horrible doings that followed we have to rely mainly on the sworn deposi- tions of Alice Greig and Jane Beare, though many others gave evidence as to the wholesale tortures and murders that took place within the sacred building. Alice Greig, who was one of the inmates of the church, swore that, on the third day of their confinement, a number of Irish under the lead of Colonel O'Doherty entered the church, and, after stripping all the inmates, men, women and children to the skin, began practising abominable tortures on the naked bodies of the men of the party, with the idea of forcing from them a confession of where they had hidden their money and valuables. From this it is evi- dent that, during the month which had elapsed since the outbreak of the rebellion, the Irish of Loughgall had been unsuccessfully hunting for the money and valuables of such of the British colonists in Loughgall as had taken refuge in Armagh church, i They were now determined by one means or another to extract the secret of their hiding-places, and the tortures which they inflicted were indescribably horrible. Many died from the mutilations inflicted. Alice Greig made oath that her son, John Greig (presumably a child), was, by order of O'Dogherty, quartered alive, and the quarters flung in the face of Richard Greig, his father, who was then himself slowly killed with eighteen wounds from skeans. 1 The devilish work was only put a stop to by the timely arrival of Philip McMulmore O'Reilly, who sternly ordered the per- petrators to desist. Jane Beare swore in her deposition that, as the result of these tortures, 4,000 was extracted from the victims in Loughgall church. What was done with the survivors we do not know, but the probability is that they were let go for the moment. Carte suggests that the torture of their prisoners, in which the Irish indulged at this period of the rising, was deliberately encouraged by Sir Phelim with the idea of incriminating those involved past all hope of forgiveness ; his fears being lest, when the British began to gain the upper hand, some of the Irish might show a disposition to go over, or, at all events, to render such services as might ensure their pardon. To counter- 1 Dep. of Alice Greig and Jane Beare. 1641] ATROCITIES IN LOUGHGALL CHURCH 175 act the possibility of any such contingency, it is suggested that Sir Phclim excited and encouraged the cupidity of the natives, until they became so deeply steeped in atrocities that their only hope lay in adhesion to the rebel cause. Carte's opinion must be accorded due respect in view of the many and varied sources of information at his disposal. At the same time, it appears fairly evident, from a survey of the facts, that the atrocities in Loughgall church were perpetrated without the cognisance of Sir Phelim. It is hardly conceivable that he should have allowed the majority of the Armagh church occupants to go free, and have reserved this horrible fate for those only who came from Loughgall. It is far more in ac- cordance with probability that he actually did intend that the Loughgall contingent should be safely escorted home ; but that some of the local people, or possibly the members of the escort themselves, seized on the opportunity which was providentially placed in their way of forcing the prisoners to reveal the whereabouts of their valuables, for which unsuccessful search had been made during the time that the British had been in Armagh church. At the same time, though Sir Phelim must be acquitted of direct complicity in the horrors of Loughgall church, he cannot escape the odium of having taken no steps to punish any of those who had so grossly violated the pledge which he had given. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that he had himself set the example of murder for gain by taking the lives of all those to whom he owed money. Lord Caulfield, to whom he owed 1,000, was still a prisoner but destined to be murdered within a few weeks. An- other of the British who suffered for having helped Sir Phelim in his need was Mr. James Maxwell of Kinard, to whom he owed 260. This gentleman was ill in bed of a raging fever at the time of his murder, but none the less he was dragged down to the river Blackwater by Patrick O'Laffan and Shane O'Hanlon and there drowned. 1 The two assassins then went back for Maxwell's wife, Grizel, who was in actual childbirth at the time. They dragged her down to the river by the hair of her head and flung her in after her husband. 2 For this brutal act both Sir Phelim and Shane O'Hanlon were sternly reproved by a priest of the name of O'Corr, who warned them that no land 1 Dep. of Dr. Robert Maxwell. * Dep. of Mr. Nicholas Simpson. 13 176 ARMAGH UNDER SIR PHELIM'S RULE [CHAP. could flourish where such abominations were practised. The rebuke had no effect. Another creditor conveniently removed was Mr. Fullerton, minister of Loughgall, to whom Sir Phelim owed 600 on mortgage. 1 Mr. Fullerton, who no doubt knew of the danger which he ran, in common with all those to whom Sir Phelim owed money, gave Manus O'Cahan 35 to convey himself and Richard Gladwich safely to Lisburn. O'Cahan took the money, but, when he had got the men a mile out of Loughgall, he cut both their throats.* Captain Ruys Price, who had recently bought some of Sir Phelim's land at Tur- karry for 100, was also put out of the way. Five of his little children were afterwards murdered at Portadown Bridge; but Mrs. Price and one daughter survived as prisoners, though under circumstances of appalling misery. All these murders would appear to have been of a purely mercenary order. If Sir Phelim's object was to encourage brutality by appealing to the cupidity of the natives, there can be no question but that he was thoroughly successful. A free licence was given to every Irishman, and, indeed, to every Irish woman and child in the counties of Armagh and Tyrone to torture and kill the. starved and naked British as they thought fit. There was no check on the inclina- tions of even the most vile, for Sir Phelim, who should have supplied the check, was either too sympathetic or too timid to assert himself. After Lord Caulfield had been murdered, Sir Phelim imprisoned Edmund O'Hugh, who fired the shot, and pretended great grief. O'Hugh, however, managed to escape with suspicious promptitude, and, though Sir Phelim hanged two sentries for the sake of appearances, he failed to convince the world that he was not privy to the escape. The only other case on record in which the Irish leader made a pretence of punishing evil-doers was on the occasion of the murder of Mrs. Boswell, who had been nurse to his youngest child. On learning of this outrage he is said to have shed tears, and to have removed a priest named Oghie (O'Hanlon) from the Government of Kinard, where the murder was committed. This super- i Reid. 3 Dep. of Edward Saltinghall, Wm. Clarke and Thomas Taylor of Clanbrassil. 1641] SIR PHELIM O'NEIL 177 ficial punishment, however, once more proved a farce, for we learn that Oghie the priest was quickly reinstated in his old post. 1 To the careful student of the doings of those days the most outstanding feature of Sir Phelim's character would appear to be its immeasurable meanness. At the begin- ning of the rising many of the British colonists in the counties of Armagh and Tyrone had crowded into Kinard, claiming the protection of Sir Phelim as the chief Irish magnate of the district. There is abundant evidence to show that this protection was, in the majority of cases, accorded, and that, as a rule, it proved quite ineffective. Many thousands of those who carried Sir Phelim's pro- tection were gradually killed off, and the man in whose promise they had trusted disclaimed responsibility by pleading ignorance of the murderers' intentions, and regret that the zeal of some of his followers had outstripped their authority. Sir Phelim himself only seems to have deve- loped butcherly tendencies after sustaining defeats in the field, when he became as a raging beast, or in cases where there was monetary profit in killing. Otherwise he appears as the passive spectator of other men's brutalities, and the occasional saviour by stealth of a suppliant. We know that he saved the life of Mr. Griffin, a curate in Armagh, but the reprieve availed the unhappy curate nothing, for he was killed two days later, a circumstance which tends to prove that Sir Phelim's protection carried no weight. It is to be doubted, indeed, whether he had much restrictive authority over his followers, in spite of his official position as Commander-in-Chief in Ulster. Michael Harrison, who was Sir Phelim's secretary, in his long and instructive deposition, cites an incident which suggests very strongly that Sir Phelim was either too frightened of his cut-throat retainers to punish them, or else secretly in sympathy with their barbarities. Harrison relates that, early in December 1641, a priest named Gynan happened to catch, red-handed, a man who had just killed an Englishman who carried Sir Phelim's protection. The priest marched the man straight off into the presence of Sir Phelim, with his sword still bloody, and warned the Irish leader that, if he did not punish those who violated his protection, God would not prosper his undertaking. * Dep. of William Skelton. 178 ARMAGH UNDER SIR PHELIM'S RULE [CHAP, ix Sir Phelim, however, made a shuffling reply and the mur- derer went off unpunished. 1 With the recognised leader acting in such a weak-kneed fashion, it is not surprising that all the vilest characters in the country came to the front and set the general fashion in cruelty. The leaders, who should have checked these outrages, looked placidly on and in some cases even took the lead in brutality. In other cases we know that they secretly succoured the British, but in no single case can we find that they dared to punish the ruffians who now ruled society. Mr. Nicholas Simpson, who was a prisoner with Tirlough Oge during the time that the latter was Governor of Armagh, deposed that, though Tirlough Oge hated his brother's brutal ways, he was afraid to punish any of the gangs of murderers who terrorised the inhabitants of the town over which he ruled. Even the O'Reillys in Cavan dared do no more than protest and rebuke. Among primitive peoples, killing and torture, where there is no retaliation and no restrictive authority, soon takes the form of a contagious disease. Such was the case in Ulster under Phelim O'Neil's rule. Even the women and children became infected with the contagion, and vied with the men in devilry. Elizabeth Price deposed that " the Irish women were more fierce and cruel than the men." Elizabeth Croker gave similar evidence. All alike, women as well as men, bragged of the atrocities they had committed as though of some mighty feat of arms. Up to the beginning of December 1641 cupidity rather than revenge was still the main motive behind the majority of the murders ; and the unfortunate fact that torture, in many cases, succeeded in discovering the hiding-places of valuables, encouraged its general use. The wretched British were promised relief from their sufferings if they would confess where their money was, but the promise was hardly ever kept. Patrick O'Kelly and Brian O'Mullan put a rope round the neck of William Blundell, and dragged him up and down the Blackwater till he told them where he had hidden 21. Upon getting possession of this money they respited him for the moment, but, after the Lisburn defeat, he and his wife and three children were all killed. A fourth child, who managed to hide, 1 Dep. of Michael Harrison. 1641] TORTURES INFLICTED ON THE BRITISH 179 was afterwards caught and drowned by Pat Donnelly at Knockearny. 1 James Gibson was half -hanged and then had his ears cut off to make him confess where his money was, which he finally did, whereupon he was at once put to death. Mary Harding and her husband were put into the stocks with the same object, and as soon as the secret of their money had been extracted she was flogged to death, and he was starved to death. 1 Fifteen Kinard men, who had been put in the stocks till they confessed their money, were then all successively killed with a skean by a boy of under fourteen. 1 Such practices became of daily occurrence all over central Ulster, but there was still no disposition towards anything in the nature of a general massacre. The British were too useful as slaves. Appalling brutalities were practised upon such as obstinately refused to disclose where their money was hidden. William Stewart, we are told, had collops cut off him while alive, red-hot coals forced into his mouth, his belly ripped up, and his entrails wound about his neck and wrists. 4 The twelve-year-old son of Thomas Stratton of Newtownbutler in Fer- managh was boiled alive in a cauldron, 5 presumably as a means of bringing pressure to bear on his parents. Mr. Watson of Loughgall was roasted alive, after having had a collop cut out of each buttock. 8 Many were buried alive. 7 In many cases, no doubt, a silence which was attributed to obstinacy was in reality due to inability to reveal that which did not exist. 1 Dep. of Joan Constable. 3 Dep. of Anne Kennard. z Dep. of Joan Bidell. * Dep. of Andrew Adair. 6 Dep. of Rev. George Cottenham, Alex. Creichton, Margaret Perkins and Elizabeth Bursell. Dep. of Dr. Robert Maxwell. 7 Ibid. CHAPTER X OPERATIONS IN ARMAGH IN considering the extent of Sir Phelim's complicity in the atrocities practised on the British colonists, it is worthy of notice that he was never himself present when those to whom he had promised protection were murdered, a circumstance which he afterwards put forward in ex- tenuation of his crimes. While the horrible scenes, al- ready described, were being enacted in the parish church at Loughgall, Sir Phdim discreetly remained in Armagh. After three days' stay in the county town, of which he now had complete possession, he set out, accompanied by Sir Con Magennis and Colonel Plunket, for Lisburn at the head of a formidable force of 4,000 men. Lord Conway's house at Brookhill, five miles from Lisburn, was reached on November 27, and was converted into the temporary headquarters of the three leaders. Captain Fisher, who commanded Lord Conway's troop at Lisburn, learnt on the 26th of Sir Phelim's approach, and at once sent a galloper off to Sir Arthur Tyringham, who was at Carrickfergus, reporting the great strength of the Irish and the immediate need for help. Recognising the urgency of the appeal, Tyringham himself rode across with thirty men of Lord Grandison's troop, which was all that he was able to muster at the moment. Immediately upon Tyringham's arrival at Lisburn he and Fisher set to work to raise a voluntary defence force from among Lord Conway's tenants. These tenants had formed the greater part of the original defence force under Lawson, but, after the failure of Sir Con Magennis's attack on Lisburn at the end of October, the majority had dispersed to their farms, which they found denuded by the Irish of everything of value. This discovery so embittered them that they were only too ready to band together again for an encounter in the open with those who had so meanly despoiled them 180 1641] DEFEAT OF SIR PHELIM AT LISBURN 181 of their all. The muster took place on the afternoon of November 27, and, while it was in progress to the great joy of all Sir George Rawdon was seen approaching with reinforcements in the shape of two companies with which he had marched from Belfast. Rawdon, who was Lord Conway's agent and the tenant of his house at Brookhill, had been in London when the rebellion broke out, but, on receipt of the news, he at once took steps to return to his post. He reached Ireland on the evening of the 26th, and, on learning of the critical situation at Lisburn, put himself at the head of two of the Belfast companies and made the best of his way to the little town for the safety of which he felt he was in a great measure responsible. He arrived, as already described, on the evening of the 27th. The united defence force now amounted to 500 foot, of whom 80 had muskets and the rest pikes and pitchforks, and 80 horse. There was no rest for Rawdon or Tyringham that night. Throughout the 26th it had snowed ; the snow had then turned to rain and had been followed by a sharp frost. The streets of Lisburn were a sheet of ice. The entire night of the 27th was spent in "roughing" the eighty horses on which the cavalry of the defending force de- pended. At daybreak on the 28th the Irish attacked in two bodies, which simultaneously advanced on opposite sides of the town. Their attack was supported by the fire of two small field-pieces, which they had taken from BrookhUl. They were allowed to penetrate well into the town before Tyring- ham made any move. Then he himself, at the head of half the horse, charged down Castle Street, while Rawdon with the remainder charged down Bridge Street. The value of the labour spent in " roughing " the horses was now very apparent, for the British horses kept their feet, while those of the Irish slipped about in all directions. The result of the fight was never for a moment in doubt. The Irish turned and scattered, and the fight became a mere pursuit. "A Brief Relation," already referred to, tells us that " 300 were killed in Castle Street and 200 in Bridge Street," and adds that "the number slain was found to be three times the number of those that fought against them." l This is clearly an exaggeration. On the other i A Brief Relation," Ulster Journal of Archaology. 182 OPERATIONS IN ARMAGH [CHAP, x hand, the figures given in the Calendar of State Papers (Addenda) have all the appearance of accuracy. Accord- ing to this account the Irish lost 300 killed and six colours. The loss on the British side was only twenty killed, among whom was Captain Boyd. Sir George Rawdon, Captain Burley and Captain St. John (the late Governor of Tan- daragee) were wounded. Sir Phelim, after burning Brook- hill, where he had remained throughout the fight, retired sullenly to his own county. This Lisburn affair proved the most disastrous defeat that Sir Phelim in person had yet met with, and it seems to have brought to the surface all the submerged savagery of his nature. From this time on he seems to have dis- carded the r61e of the humane leader, powerless to check the excesses of his followers. Disappointment and rage seem to have had the effect of turning him, for the time being, into an unreasoning fiend. " Their loss and over- throw did so enrage the rebels," says the author of a " Brief Relation," " that, for several days and weeks after, they murdered many hundreds of Protestants whom they had kept prisoners in the counties of Armagh and Tyrone and tormented them with several manner of deaths." Carte throws the responsibility for these murders wholly on Sir Phelim and his diabolical temper. "For, as his judgment was very weak," he says, " so were his passions very strong, and on some occasions very near approaching to rage and frenzy. For, upon any ill success, he would in a fury order his prisoners to be murdered, or some act of barbarity, cruelty or senseless murder to be done." The first and one of the most violent of these outbursts was after Lisburn. We have others of almost equal violence following on the defeats at Castle Derg, Augher, Drogheda and Ardee, but it was undoubtedly Lisburn which set the fashion of resorting to massacre in order to avenge defeat. Most of the horrid acts recorded in the thirty-two volumes of depositions are described as taking place " after Lisnagarvey " (Lisburn). What orders Sir Phelim may secretly have issued in " his rage and frenzy " we do not know, but we do know that the effect was very far-reaching. He himself, with 1,500 men, went on to Tullahogue, where it was contended by many that he had himself invested as the O'Neil ; and thence he proceeded to Strabane ? which he reached on December 1641] MASSACRE IN KILMORE 188 14. l Lady Strabane whose husband had died the pre- vious year had already agreed to betray the Castle into his hands. On his approach, a few shots were fired for the sake of appearances, but they were purposely aimed wide, and Sir Phelim made a triumphant entry into the town, where, for the moment, we may leave him, paying court to the friendly widow. In the meanwhile, many of the Irish from the Blackwater district, who had been wounded at Lisburn, had returned to their homes, smarting no less from their personal in- juries than from the sense of defeat. Either from these causes, or as a result of secret orders issued by Sir Phelim, the parish of Kilmore now became the scene of some very dreadful outrages. It was put about that the murders which took place in that parish were in the main a pre- cautionary measure aimed at preventing the British from joining their victorious fellow-countrymen at Lisburn. There is a certain probability in this theory owing to the marked preponderance of men among the victims. The only woman's name given in the list is that of Mrs. Blundell, who was killed with her three children, but of men's names we have : Hugh Clarke, Richard Rutter, William Blundell (whose disclosure of his money has already been described), John Hale, Thomas and James Orton, Thomas and John Edmonds, John Fillis, Edward Moore, James Pownall, Ralph Clayton, Geoffrey Jackson, Thomas Downall, Hugh More and his son and Daniel Matchett.* Ellen Matchett, the wife of the last-named, who was a con- siderable landowner, managed to escape, half demented, to Hockley, where with many others she took refuge in the house of Mrs. Doyne.* This good woman, who was a Protestant, and the daughter of Sir George Sexton, sheltered, we are told, no fewer than twenty-nine of the hunted British in her house. The secret of her power apparently lay in the fact that her son Michael Doyne was able, by means of Lady Bellew of Castletown in Louth, to obtain for Sir Phelim exact information as to all the intended movements of the British. 4 Mrs. Doyne had been a widow when she married Michael Doyne of Knock- earny. After her marriage, she and Doyne migrated to 1 Dep. of Michael Harrison. 1 Dep. of Anne Smith and Margaret Clarke. 3 Dep of Jane Beare. 4 Relation of Francis Sacheverell. 184 OPERATIONS IN ARMAGH [CHAP, x Hockley in Armagh, where her late husband's property was situated. She had a daughter named Theresa, who was a Roman Catholic, and who was, on many occasions, heard to express the hope that she would yet live to see her mother hanged for the part she had played in rescuing the British. 1 This remarkable woman, in fact, appears to have had the whole of her family against her. Her hus- band, Michael Doyne, we are told, had murdered all the British around his old home in Knockearny, to the number of forty-four. 1 At Hockley, however, which was his wife's property, he had to content himself with robbing them of all their goods and stripping them of their clothes. Mrs. Doyne, in spite of the antagonism of her husband, son and daughter, successfully held her own to the end, and that notwithstanding the very real dangers that she herself incurred in carrying out her charitable work. In the whole history of the rising, there is nothing more remarkable than the courage and devotion of this woman. 1 Dep. of Dr. Robert Maxwell. 2 Dep. of Jane Beare. CHAPTER XI OPERATIONS IN TYRONE WE left Sir Phelim at Strabane paying court to the lady of that place, and, in order to get a proper understanding of his future movements, it becomes necessary to take a retrospective glance at the formation of that remarkable corps known as the Lagan Force. It will be remembered that the King's first act, on learning of the rising, had been to send over a commission authorising Sir Robert Stewart to raise a regiment as a charge on the State. Sir Robert had, in fact, anticipated this commission by starting to raise a defence corps from the moment that he received warning of the rising. It would appear that this warning reached the two Stewarts at Newtown by means of a messenger which the Bishop of Down sent off from Lisburn as soon as Sir Arthur Tyringham had brought news to that place of the loss of Newry. A second messenger as we have already seen was then sent off to Lord Montgomery in the Ards ; the Bishop himself and all the residents fled towards Belfast, and a horseman was sent off to warn the north-west. 1 By a light rider on a good horse the distance between Lis- burn and Omagh can be easily covered in a night. From Omagh, fresh messengers were sent out to Clogher and Newtown, and the latter place at once despatched its own horsemen to warn Strabane and Derry. It is probable that the Bishop of Down sent a third messenger to Coleraine, for we know that Archibald Stewart at Ballymena received his first warning from Coleraine. Later on, when the controversy arose between Sir Frederic Hamilton and Sir William Cole over the failure of the latter to warn the province effectively, in spite of the private information he had received, Cole insisted that he had sent a messenger named Francis Barnaby from i See Cal. State Papers, Addenda, October 24, 1641. 186 OPERATIONS IN TYRONE [CHAP, xi Enniskillen to Newtown and Derry. Sir Frederic Ham- ilton, on the other hand, who was staying in Derry at the time with the Governor, Sir John Vaughan (who was also his father-in-law), swore that no such messenger had reached either Newtown or Derry, and disputed the fact that any had been despatched. 1 The only warning, he said, that reached that part of the world had been through the Bishop of Down. On receipt of the news at Derry Sir John Vaughan and Robert Thornton, the Mayor, undertook the organisation of the defence works, while Sir Frederic Hamilton made his way back to his home at Manor Hamilton in Co. Leitrim, where he was able to get together a force of 250 of the neighbouring British, with whom he successfully defended his house throughout the course of the rising. 2 Sir William Stewart of Aghentain and his younger and more famous brother, Sir Robert Stewart, were members of a Wigtonshire family. They were both at Newtown when the warning horseman reached that place from Omagh. Sir William at once started off for Raphoe, where his own regiment was, and set to work to make its strength up to 500 by enlisting voluntary recruits from among the farmers, labourers and artisans of the Lagan (Lough Swilly) district. At the same time Sir Robert Stewart was similarly engaged in the neighbourhood of Newtown, where he succeeded in raising the regiment for which he held the King's commission. The third regiment, which at this time completed the force, was raised in the first instance from among the Ballyshannon colonists. The Castle of Ballyshannon, which afforded shelter and protection to numbers of refugees from east Fermanagh as well as from south Donegal, was repeatedly attacked by Rory Maguire's father-in-law Col. Nugent during the earlier stages of the rising, but with a complete absence of success. As elsewhere, defence corps were formed from among the able-bodied men who had crowded into Bally- shannon with their families for protection. One of the regiments so formed was under the command of Sir Ralph Gore, and as soon as it became apparent that Sir Henry Folliott, the Governor of Ballyshannon, could easily hold his own against any attacks upon the place, it was decided 1 Information of Sir Frederic Hamilton. 2 Remonstrance of Sir Frederic HamiJtop, 1641] SIR WILLIAM AND SIR ROBERT STEWART 187 between him and Gore that the latter should move his regiment north with a view to succouring and protecting the distressed colonists in central Donegal. Here the regiment operated with great success, and was fortunate enough to rescue a number of British women and children, who were afterwards concentrated in a camp under the protective wing of the regiment. For a time all went well, but, as the winter advanced, the scanty ammunition of the regiment became wholly exhausted and food supplies became almost unobtainable. All were soon in an ex- tremely precarious position, being hemmed in on all sides by masses of the Irish. An urgent appeal for help was sent to the Stewarts, in response to which Sir Robert Stewart marched over the Barnesmore gap with his own regiment and three companies of Sir William Stewart's regiment, and brought the whole assembly of British safely through to Raphoe, after a running combat with the Irish which lasted seven hours. 1 The women, children and old men were then sent on to Derry, and Gore's regiment was officially taken over by his subordinate, Audley Mervyn of Castle Trellick, a son of Sir Henry Mervyn of Petersfield, Hants, and afterwards Speaker of the House of Commons. Gore himself died shortly afterwards. The nominal leader of the Lagan Force at its inaugura- tion was Sir William Stewart, who assumed the command by virtue of his seniority and large landed interests in Tyrone and Donegal. In addition to the Castle of Aghen- tain, which he had built, he owned Kilmacrenan Castle and Newtownstewart, the latter of which he had in- herited from his father-in-law, Sir Robert Newcomen, together with the neighbouring town lands of Lislap, Tullymuck and Legland. He also owned consider- able property in the Munterloney district. Although Sir William was the nominal commander of the Lagan Force, the confidence of the colonists was mainly in Sir Robert, who was not only a very much younger man than his brother, but who had seen a good deal of active service abroad. All the chief exploits of the Lagan Force were achieved under the leadership of Sir Robert Stewart, who by degrees superseded his brother, and in the end was unanimously elected Commander-in-Chief. So highly 1 " Relation " of Audley Mervyn. 188 OPERATIONS IN TYRONE [CHAP, xi esteemed was Sir Robert, and so universal was the confi- dence in his military capacity, that, on the first warning of the outbreak, he became the focus-point on which all north-west Ulster converged. On October 23 there were many horsemen galloping with red spurs about north Ulster. One of these, despatched by Sir Robert Stewart, brought the news of the rising to Sir Thomas Staples at Cookstown, where he happened to be at the moment. Sir Thomas's home was at Moneymore, where he had built " a very fair and strong Castle " in which Lady Staples was at the moment residing. Instead of hurrying back to defend his lady and property, Staples, assisted by Colonel Saunderson, collected as many of the British as he could from between Cookstown and Dungannon, and marched them twenty miles over the Munterloney Moun- tains to Newtown, leaving Moneymore and Lady Staples to their fate. On arriving at Newtown most of the able-bodied men of the party joined Sir Robert Stewart's regiment, but ten or twelve days later on learning that no personal violence was being offered to the British residents in east Tyrone 500 of those who had accompanied Sir Thomas Staples returned to their homes. The above figure, which pre- sumably includes women and children, is furnished by Colonel Audley Mervyn, and the same authority tells us that almost all those who so returned were subsequently murdered. 1 Sir Thomas Staples himself went on to Derry. The only excuse for, and indeed the only explanation of Sir Thomas Staples's desertion of his wife, his district and its resident British, is that Moneymore had already been surprised and seized by Cormac O'Hagan before Sir Robert Stewart's warning reached Staples at Cooks- town. This must, in fact, have been the case, for we know that Moneymore was seized on the 23rd and Staples cannot possibly have received his warning before the 24th. Its recovery was then, in all probability, beyond his power even to attempt, for the Irish held Lady Staples as hostage, and we may be quite sure that any such attempt would have resulted in her instant execution. Moneymore was captured for the Irish by Cormac O'Hagan. On October 23 he surprised the place and made 1 "Relation" of Audley Mervyn. 1641] MONEYMORE AND LISSAN 189 prisoners of all the residents, including Lady Staples, who was confined in her own Castle. One man only of the name of Russell, who was the resident agent for the Drapers' Company, was killed, but otherwise the British were merely robbed and stripped. Moneymore was particularly unfortu- nate in the fact that its three leading men, Sir Thomas Staples and the two Clotworthys, were all away at the time of the outbreak, otherwise the Castle, which we are told was very strong, would undoubtedly have been garrisoned and defended. As it was, there appears to have been no attempt at resistance. The place was one of the first seized by the rebels, and the surprise was complete. Cormac O'Hagan, who was a resident in the village, appointed himself Governor, but did not occupy the Castle, preferring to remain in his own house, to which he transferred all the valuables from the Castle and the houses of the two Clotworthys. 1 While O'Hagan was taking possession of Moneymore, Neil Oge O'Quin seized the neighbouring settlement of Lissan, also without opposition. Here again, only one man of the name of Higginson was killed, the rest of the British being merely stripped and im- prisoned. 2 Unhappily this respite was only temporary. We may now return to Newtown, henceforth to be known as Newtownstewart, which, during the first few days of the rising, was the centre of activity in north- west Ulster. The moment the Bishop of Down's messenger had reached Omagh, all the British residents in that barony made their way north to Newtownstewart. A horseman was sent off to warn Clogher, with the result that most of the residents in that barony were able to take refuge either in Augher or Aghentain Castles. As to the fate of Aughnacloy we know nothing, for its name does not once appear in the records of the period. On the western border of the county the walls of Castle Derg gave shelter to the scattered colonists in that part, and even Strabane in spite of its occupation by the Roman Catholic Hamiltons was used as a rallying point for the British in the immediate neighbourhood. From all these centres there was, from that time on, a constant flow of refugees towards Londonderry. Even Bally- shannon and Enniskillen sent their periodical convoys i "Delation" of Col. Clotworthy. Dep. of Lady Staples. 190 OPERATIONS IN TYRONE [CHAP, xi of non-combatants towards the Foyle, 1 passing them on at agreed points into the keeping of the Lagan Force, who escorted them in safety to their destination. The attraction of Derry, from the refugees' point of view, lay in the facilities which it offered for reaching England by sea ; so exceptional indeed were these, that the Foyle City, throughout the period of the rising, was free from the congestion which caused such terrible mortality in Coleraine. The City itself, at the first alarm, was put into a state of defence under the superintendence of the Governor and Mayor. Seven companies of 100 men each were raised from among the citizens and put under the com- mand of Robert Thornton the Mayor, Simon Pitt, Henry Finch, Hewit Finch, Henry Osborne, John Kilmer and, later on, Robert Lawson. The City had four guns, but no muskets, all these having in obedience to one of the last orders of the late Lord Strafford been sent to Dublin during the spring of the year. All that was discovered in the way of arms were some old decayed calivers and 100 swords, with which the seven companies were most inadequately equipped. 2 As matters turned out the insufficiency of arms had no serious effects, for Derry itself was never attacked. Two of its companies, however, fought side by side with the Lagan Force at the battle of Glenmaquin, and contributed in no small degree to Sir Phelim's heavy overthrow on that occasion. The first stronghold in north-west Ulster to be attacked was as might be supposed from its geographical position Augher Castle. This Castle had originally been built by Cormac McBaron, Tyrone's brother. It had been captured by Chichester in 1603, and, after Cormac had been sent to the Tower, it was bestowed upon his illegiti- mate son Brian Crossach, a pension of 100 a year being at the same time conferred on Cormac's wife. In 1615, however, Brian was convicted of complicity in Rory O'Cahan's rebellion and executed, and the Castle definitely passed out of the hands of the native Irish. It was a place of considerable size and strength and mounted two brass sakers of ancient pattern. When the 1641 rising broke out, it was in the occupation of a very young man 1 Letter of Sir William Cole to House of Lords, January 11, 1644. Reid. 1641] SIEGE OF AUGHER CASTLE 191 named Archibald Erskine, the son of Sir James Erskine, who was away at the time. There was also staying at the Castle a somewhat older man of the name of Archibald Hamilton. It soon became very crowded, owing to the number of refugees who flocked to it for shelter from all parts of the barony of Clogher. Augher was too near Sir Phelim's house at Kinard to be long left unmolested, and the Clogher refugees had barely gained the friendly shelter of its walls before it was invested by a force of 2,000 Irish. No assault was attempted, and, at the end of a week, the two young commanders, wearying of inaction, sallied forth with eighty horse and twelve musketeers, and succeeded in putting to flight the whole of the investing force, which lost nearly 100 men in the encounter, or rather in the stampede which followed on the charge. On the British side Captain Barclay and a certain number of the rank and file were killed, and among the wounded the name of Archibald Hamilton was returned. 1 The latter 's wound, however, was clearly of no very serious character, for two days afterwards he made a raid into the Trough country (Co. Monaghan) and after a successful encounter with Neil McKenna McMahon brought in a number of cattle for the use of the castle inmates. So the position remained till the middle of December, when Sir Phelim arrived at Strabane. Every stronghold in north-west ^Ulster had so far successfully resisted all the attacks of the Irish, and Sir Phelim's arrival on the scene was no doubt mainly inspired by the idea of repairing the errors and shortcomings of others. He determined to commence operations in west Tyrone by capturing Castle Derg, and, with that end in view, marched out of Strabane at the head of the bulk of the 1,500 men with whom he had arrived. Sir Phelim's success against this fortress, however, was no greater than that of his predecessor, and he was repulsed with considerable loss. Once again as at Lisburn Sir Phelim's disappointment at his unexpected reverse called all his worst passions into play. In his rage he issued orders to Brian McArt Oge O'Neil (a nephew of Owen Roe) to hunt up the district and to kill every man, woman and child of British blood that he could find outside the walls. Having eased his mind to this extent he then, i "Relation" of Audley Mervyn. 14 192 OPERATIONS IN TYRONE [CHAP. XI in the latter half of December, passed on to Augher, whither Rory Maguire, in obedience to orders received, had already marched with his Fermanagh army and a siege gun. 1 Preparations, in short, on a very important scale had been made for the reduction of this place. As soon as Sir Phelim arrived on the scene the siege- gun was placed in position and the walls battered till a suitable breach had been made. A very dark night was then selected for a general assault on the breach, but the effort proved a failure, the Irish being beaten off with the loss of 200 of their men. Some very barbarous acts of revenge followed on this reverse. Sir Phelim, exhibiting his usual demoniacal rage upon defeat, set the example by sending off Mulmore O'Donnell with orders to exterminate every British resident in the three parishes of Mullaghbrack, Lough- gilly and Kilcluney, situated in the Fews, i.e. the central part of Co. Armagh. 2 Why these three parishes, which are far from the scene of action, were selected is not known, nor are the actual results, which followed on the order, known. One deponent computes that 1,500 were killed in the three parishes, but there is no con- firmation of this figure, which may be taken as one of the exaggerations so common to the period. All that is known for certain is that Mr. Mercer, minister of Mullagh- brack, and Mr. Burns, curate of Loughgilly, were among the victims, and that some hundreds were saved from the fury of the assassins by Henry O'Neil of Glasdromin. Tirlough Oge, at that time Governor of Armagh, was also instrumental in saving many of the British from the fate prepared for them by his brother.* While Sir Phelim's emissaries were retaliating in Co. Armagh for the Augher defeat, the rank and file of the defeated army were engaged in looking nearer at hand for suitable objects for their vengeance. These in the absence of any human beings of British blood were ultimately found in the British cattle. " Their hatred of the English was such," Dr. Robert Maxwell stated in his evidence before the commission, " that, at the siege of Augher, they would not even kill the English cattle, but cut collops out of them being alive, letting 1 "Relation" of Audley Mervyn. * Dep. of James Shaw. * Dep. of James Shaw. 1641] AGHENTAIN CASTLE 193 them roar till they had no flesh on their backs, so that sometimes a beast would live for two or three days in that torment." > Sir Phelim made no second attempt upon Augher. In a very evil frame of mind he went back to Kinard, while Rory Maguire returned to Fermanagh after making a passing attack upon Sir William Stewart's Castle at Aghentain, from which, however, he was successfully repulsed by Captain Maxwell, High Sheriff of the county, who was in occupation at the time.* 1 Dep. of Dr. Robert Maxwell. * "Relation" of Audley Mervyn. CHAPTER XII CHRISTMAS 1641 IN ULSTER ALTHOUGH the Irish had now been three times defeated before the walls of Augher, and although they showed no present disposition to renew the attack, the breaches made in the walls and the losses sustained by the garrison in the various attacks had so weakened them that they were neither in a position to resist another determined attack nor to sally forth in search of much-needed pro- visions. Representations to this effect were made to Sir Robert Stewart at Newtownstewart, and, in response, he sent Colonel Saunderson, Colonel Audley Mervyn and Sergeant-Major Galbraith with- 500 foot and 100 horse to the relief of the two Castles of Augher and Aghentain. This force took up its quarters at Clogher (three miles from Augher) and, on the day following its arrival, made a raid into Fermanagh in search of food. On the way a select storming party, under Ensign Long, carried Donough Maguire's Castle by assault and put all the garrison to the sword. A number of cattle were collected, with which the raiding party then made its way back to Augher. 1 In view of the horrible acts of retaliation which followed upon this raid, it is important to bear in mind that the killing of the garrison of Donough Maguire's Castle during its capture by assault was a perfectly legitimate act of war. It was the invariable practice in the wars of those days that no quarter was given in cases where a fortress refused to surrender and had to be carried by assault, the justification being found in the extra loss of life which an assault necessarily entailed on the attacking party. So generally was this rule recognised, that the garrison of a Castle which was carried by assault would always fight 1 " Relation " of Audley Mervyn. 194 1641] MASSACRE AT LISGOOL 195 to the last, and be killed fighting, knowing well that they could expect no mercy. To the Irish, however, the observances of European warfare made no appeal. The inmates of one of their Castles had been killed, and they determined that, in retaliation, the inmates of British Castles should be killed, even though the possession of these Castles should be obtained by other means than by assault. The day after Saunderson had returned to Augher with Maguire's cattle, i.e. on December 23, Cahill Maguire of Knocknimy and Neil O'Hugh, one of Sir Phelim's foster-brothers, accompanied by a priest named Cassidy, 1 with a mob of 2,400 on their heels, arrived at Lord Hastings's house at Lisgool, which was at the time occupied by Mr. Segrave. Since October 23 seventy- four British men, women and children had eked out a miserable existence in this house, 1 clothed in a few filthy rags, living on refuse scraps and debarred from stirring out of doors. It was now resolved to destroy them. Lisgool, which had been built by Sir John Davies in 1615, is not described as a Castle, but as " a fair stone house " ; but, in any case, it would appear to have been sufficiently strong to resist all attempts at capture by force. Audley Mervyn, in his " Relation," says that like Tully it was surrendered to Maguire upon promise of quarter. The inmates were then driven to the upper story, and the lower story was set fire to. All those who attempted to escape the flames were thrust back with pikes. The shrieks of those within were a source of great amusement to the onlookers, who found pleasure in imitating their cries, and in exclaiming " How sweetly do they fry ! " The only two within the walls who were saved were James Dunbar, the son and heir of Sir John Dunbar, and a woman whose name is not recorded. Seventy-two were burned. 8 On the same day, whilst the Lisgool tragedy was being enacted, Rory Maguire arrived at Monea Castle and there, according to the evidence given by John Carmichael at Lord Maguire's trial, burned eighteen people in the church. 4 An Irishman named John Cormack, on the other hand, in his evidence at Sir Phelim's trial, stated 1 Dep. of Charles Campbell. 2 Letter of Sir William Cole to House of Lords, January 11, 1644. 3 Dep. of John Simpson and Thomas Winslow and Thomas Grant. * See Memoirs of Sir James Turner. 196 CHRISTMAS 1641 IN ULSTER [CHAP, xn that only eight were killed. The Castle itself does not seem to have been attacked. From Monea, Rory went on to Tully Castle, which lay ten miles distant on the shores of Lough Erne. This Castle, the property of Sir George Hume, was reached late in the evening, and that night Rory and his followers camped out in the fields close to the Castle walls. On the following morning Rory ap- proached the Castle, and, in a friendly manner, desired a parley with the Constable. This was agreed to, and Rory himself and Brian Magrath on the one side, and Lady Hume and John Grier on the other, debated terms. Sir George was away. It was finally agreed to surrender the Castle, with all the arms, ammunition and valuables in it, on condition that all the inmates should be allowed to go to Enniskillen, or to Monea (which was half-way between the two places). To the terms of this agreement, which were made in writing and signed, Rory added his own solemn oath. 1 The Castle was then surrendered and Rory took possession, after taking the precaution of having all the arms within the place handed out over the wall before he ventured inside. The moment the Irish were inside they stripped to the skin every living being within the walls (with the solitary exception of Lady Hume). All the men were then bound hand and foot and, together with the women and children, were thrown naked into the courtyard of the Castle, where they lay all night in the bitter cold. On the following morning, being Christmas Day, all were butchered in cold blood, to the number of fifteen men and sixty women and children.* The only exceptions were Lady Hume, Patrick Hume, Alexander Hume and John Grier, who had been taken on the previous evening to a neighbouring barn belonging to a man named Good- fellow. Those within the barn were mercifully unable to see the horrible doings within the Castle walls, but they saw one woman run naked out of the Castle gates, only to have two pikes thrust into her by a couple of watchers outside named Thomas McRory and Philip O'Muldoon.' In this way did Rory Maguire celebrate Christmas 1 Dep. of Patrick Hume. 2 Dep. of Richard Bourke, Bachelor of Divinity, Brian Maguire and Thomas Winslow. 3 Dep. of Richard Fawcett. 1641] MASSACRE AT TULLY 197 in Co. Fermanagh in the year 1641. Among the men butchered at Tully were Francis Trotter, Thomas Trotter, Alexander Sheringfield, Alexander Bell, George Chearnside, Robert Black, James Barrie, Thomas Anderson, James Anderson, David Anderson, John Brodie and Robert Lawdon. The names of the women and children have not been handed down. As it is the fashion, with a certain class of writers, in dealing with the 1641 rising, to discount the value of any evidence given by British witnesses, the following short account of the occurrence furnished by Rory's uncle, Brian Maguire, has a special interest. Brian says : " About Christmas 1641 the said Rory, having given quarter to many of the British who held the Castle of Tully, after quarter was given, he the said Rory and his followers first stripped and then murdered man, woman and child of them that came out of the Castle upon quarter." * It is satisfactory to be able to add that the perpetrators of this horrible outrage were intercepted on their way back by a combined party, specially sent out for the purpose, from Monea and Enniskillen. This party was too late to save Tully, which was evidently its object, but it gave Rory and his butchers a severe beating, captured four colours, and accounted for one of the McMahons, one of the Maguires, and 200 others of those who had been active participators in the murders. 8 Of the ultimate fate of Monea Castle nothing is known, but the strong probability is that, after the Tully affair, those within the walls were withdrawn to Enniskillen. The massacres at Lisgool and Tully were beyond doubt acts of private revenge on the part of Rory Maguire for the capture of Donough Maguire's Castle and the killing of the garrison. Sir Phelim, however, who had parted company with Rory after Augher, had grievances of his own to avenge, in the first instance for his defeat at Augher, and secondly for the almost simultaneous defeat of his troops before Drogheda on December 20. As to the exact instructions which Sir Phelim may have given in the matter of the outrages which followed we know nothing. All that is certain is that, shortly after the two defeats above mentioned, and almost at the same time as the massacres at Lisgool and Tully, Sir Phelim's own parish i Dep. of Brian Maguire. " Relation " of Audley Mervyn. 198 CHRISTMAS 1641 IN ULSTER [CHAP, xn at Kinard was the scene of some very cold-blooded and barbarous murders. " When the rebels came from the siege of Augher, they, like so many bears robbed of their cubs, killed every Scot they met with," the Reverend John Kerdiff swore in his evidence. 1 The organisers of, and the chief actors in, these murders were Sir Phelim's foster-brothers, the O'Hughs. How they executed their horrible work is not known, except in the case of the Bos wells. All that we have on record are the names of the victims, or at all events of some of them. Among these were Humphrey Potter and his wife ; John Wynn and his wife ; John Leatherborrow and his son ; a glazier (name not given) and his wife, mother-in-law and two children ; Mrs. Babington and her daughter ; a man named Higgs, and William Bos well with his wife and infant child. 8 The three last named had come over to Kinard a twelve- month earlier at the express invitation of Sir Phelim. Mrs. Boswell had acted as nurse to a child of his in London, and was bound by strong ties to his family. On Christmas Day, however, she and her husband and child were killed at their own house in Kinard. Mrs. Boswell had on her no less than fourteen wounds from skeans. Her baby was thrust through with a skean and thrown on to the turf- stack. 1 Sir Phelim's grief on hearing the news has already been described. He sent William Skelton, who was a prisoner in Kinard house, out to bury the bodies, and he also went through the pretence of deposing a priest named Oghie, who was in command at Kinard at the time. In addition to these domestic -murders at Kinard we learn from the deposition of Catherine Cook, the wife of a local carpenter, that about the same date, i.e. on December 20, a large batch of prisoners was sent from either Loughgall or Kilmore to Portadown Bridge and there drowned in the Bann. 4 This, so far as can be ascertained, was the second batch sent to Portadown, the first having been despatched at the beginning of November. 5 The striking difference between these late December massacres and those which had taken place in the same parishes a month earlier was that, whereas in November the victims had been principally men, in December they 1 Dep. of Mr. John Kerdiff, Rector of Diserteragh in the barony of Dungannon. 1 Dep. of Michael Harrison. * Dep. of Catherine Cook. 3 Dep. of William Skelton. Dep. of Elizabeth Price. 1641] REASONS FOR RENEWED MASSACRES 199 were almost all women and children. The fact is interest- ing as a barometer of the public temper. It shows how the instinct of self-preservation, which at first prompted the killing of the able-bodied men, lest they should find means of joining the fighting forces of the British in the field, was quickly followed by a blood-thirst, which made no distinction between men, women and children. Mr. George Creichton furnishes us with an interesting state- ment on the subject of the curious workings of the native mind, which were responsible for the steadily ascending scale of massacre as the rebellion progressed. " The Irish said they saw utter destruction at hand, for they had carried so great bitterness for so long in their hearts, and had now so suddenly broken out against them that had brought them up, kept them in their houses like their own children, and made no difference between them and their English friends and kindred. By all which the English had so well deserved of them, and they had requited them so evilly, that the English would never trust them hereafter ; so that now it remained that either they must destroy the English or the English must destroy them." l The same witness said that the com- monly expressed opinion among the Irish was that Rory Maguire had undone them all by his precipitate massacres, which involved them all so deeply that there was no going back and no hope of pardon. It is a curious fact, for which it is difficult to find an explanation, that festival days seem to have been specially selected for many of the worst massacres. Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Easter and May-day were all celebrated by massacres of British prisoners. The massacre which occurred at the New Year in Monaghan is par- ticularly interesting because of the prominent part taken in it by the local priests. Up to this date the priests with one or two distressing exceptions appear mainly as restraining influences, succouring the British and rebuking the excesses of such ruffians as Manus O'Cahan, Toole McCann and even Sir Phelim himself. We are told that one Roman Catholic priest, named Dr. Daly, preached so vehemently against the prevailing massacres that in the end he had to fly for his life. 8 From the beginning of the 1 Examination of the Rev. George Creichton. Dep. of Dr. Robert Maxwell. 200 CHRISTMAS 1641 IN ULSTER [CHAP, xii New Year, however, the priests show up in a different light. On New Year's Day Emer McLoughlin McMahon, Vicar- General of Clogher, and afterwards titular Bishop of Clogher and General of the Irish Forces in Ulster, came to Ballinrosse, accompanied by a man named Patrick McEdmund McMahon and celebrated the advent of the New Year by drowning seventeen men, women and chil- dren, some of whom were English and some Scots. 1 On the following day Patrick McEdmund w r ent on to Lord Essex's house at Carrickmacross, being joined on the way by a Donoughmoyne priest named Philip O'Duffy and by another man named Owen O'Murphy. The Vicar- General himself did not accompany them, but the rumour was that all that was done was by his orders,* his alleged reason for his change of mood being that, during or after the defeat of the Irish at Ardee, some priests had been killed. In Carrickmacross House a large party of British had been kept prisoners since October 23. These were now doomed to die. Those of better social position were accorded the privilege of being hanged, such as Mr. William Williams, Lord Essex's seneschal, Mr. Gabriel Williams, the brother of the last-named, Mr. Ishell Jones, his brother-in-law, Mr. Hollis, the manager of Mrs. Usher's estate in Farney, Mr. Morris, clerk to Sir Henry Spottis- wood, John Jackson, a tailor in Carrickmacross, Thomas Aldersley, a provision merchant in the same place, and Thomas Geddes. 1 The rest, being of inferior rank, were hacked to death in the usual way with swords and skeans, and their bodies flung outside into ditches. The names of these unfortunate people were Thomas Clark, Thomas Osborne, a shepherd, John Morris, Philip Farley, a farmer, Miles Powley, William Wood, Thomas Trawn, a Scotch pedlar, George Green, Ralph Seacombe, John Hughes, a labourer, Edward Bell, Edward Crutchley, Robert Ray, Richard Gates, Richard Taylor, a shepherd, John Walmisley, Richard Musgrave, William Musgrave, Henry Wylie, George Harrison and Thomas Young. 4 The only men saved were Anthony Atkinson, Mr. Branthwaite's servant, who was put into Redmond Burke's house, where Mr. 1 Dep. of Elizabeth Clarke. * Dep. of Mr. Robert Branthwaite. 3 Dep. of Margaret Kelly. 4 Dep. of Anthony Atkinson and Rev. Robert Boyle. 1641] MASSACRE AT CARRICKMACROSS 201 Branthwaite himself had been since October 23, and Mr. Robert Boyle, the Minister of Carrickmacross. The women were not killed, but were stripped and turned out into the January cold to live or die as chance might dictate. It is not probable that many of them survived both the cold and the bands of murderers that were every- where abroad. Mrs. Montgomery, the wife of the minister of Donoughmoyne, deposed that 108 of the British in Carrickmacross including many women and children lost their lives between the New Year and May 1642. l There can be little doubt that the New Year murders at Carrickmacross, all of which, we are told, were carried out under the personal superintendence of Owen O'Murphy, were actuated not only by desire to avenge the defeat at Ardee, but also from genuine fear lest the male prisoners might break out and join the victorious British forces. Sir Simon Harcourt had reached Ireland with 1,400 men (the first troops sent over since the rising) on the last day of December, and the news of his arrival seems to have filled the Irish with wild fears. 1 Dep. of Mrs. Montgomery. CHAPTER XIII PROGRESS OF THE REBELLION IN ANTRIM EVER since the beginning of the seventeenth century the counties of Down and Antrim had been in a sense apart from the rest of Ulster. These two counties had been planted eight or nine years earlier than the six escheated counties, more thoroughly, and with colonists who were almost exclusively lowland Scots. By virtue of the defence- corps so promptly organised by the Antrim and Down colonists at the outbreak of the rising, there had been few instances, in either county, of private houses or Castles cap- tured by the Irish and filled with British prisoners destined to be murdered later on. On the other hand, the very fact of forming, at a few hours' notice, a defence-corps composed of every able-bodied man, of necessity meant that the women, children, and old men had to be left behind at the mercy of loose bands of cut-throats. We know that, between the dates of the first and second attacks on Lisburn, Lord Conway's tenants on returning to their houses found them stripped and spoiled. What was the fate of their women and children ? This is a point which must for ever remain in obscurity. It is certain that during the concentration of the Tyrone, as well as of the Antrim men, the women and children in many cases got lost sight of for several weeks. Many were no doubt killed, and many others found shelter in the houses of friendly Irish, such as Daniel O'Hagan. The author of Warr of Ireland tells us that, after Colonel Clotworthy had captured Mount- joy, many British women and children found their way there, who had been given up for lost by their male rela- tions. He draws attention to the important fact that the massacre of Captain Upton's Irish tenants at Temple- patrick, in January 1642 was an act of revenge, organised by some Tullahogue men, whose women and children had 202 1642] THE PORTNA MASSACRE 208 been murdered while they were concentrating for defence. As to the extent of such murders, there are no reliable data, nor can there be any profit in hazarding wild con- jectures or in quoting extravagant estimates. It will serve better to deal only with occurrences as to which there is ample and reliable evidence. Reference has already been made to the regiment which Mr. Archibald Stewart, the Earl of Antrim's agent, raised from the Bally mena district, and which was mainly composed of Antrim's tenants. Stewart, though a worthy and well- meaning man, was clearly of a simple and credulous nature, for he was rash enough to include in his regiment not only a company of the Roman Catholic Highlanders from the Route and Glynns, under the command of James McColl- kittagh McDonnell, but even a company of Irish under Tirlough Oge McCahan. Both Chichester and Montgomery protested very strongly against the risky course which Stewart was bent on, but without succeeding in shaking his resolution. He was now to pay the penalty of his folly. On January 2 Stewart's regiment was brought to Portna on the Bann for the relief of Mr. George Canning, who was being besieged by Manus O'Cahan and 500 Irish in Artagarvey House on the Coleraine side of the Bann. The regiment encamped at Portna, on the Antrim side. When O'Cahan's and McDonnell's companies learnt the nature of the service which was required of them they refused to take part in it, and were accordingly left behind at Portna. Captain Peeble's and Captain Glover's com- panies were also left behind, as the entire strength of the regiment was not considered necessary for the service required. The remainder of the regiment crossed the river. As soon as they were safely across, Henry and Art O'Hagan of Magherasharlin in Co. Antrim crossed the river and informed Manus O'Cahan of the state of affairs at the camp, and of the excellent opportunity which presented itself for exterminating the two companies which had been left at Portna. Manus was quick to realise that the opportunity was indeed unique, and, leaving men enough at Artagarvey to occupy the attention of Mr. James Stewart, who was at the moment in command of the regiment, he crossed over with the remainder to the Antrim side. Once across, no time was lost in mapping out a 204 PROGRESS OF REBELLION IN ANTRIM [CHAP, xm programme with James McCollkittagh's company, and with the company of Tirlough Oge O'Cahan (brother to Manus). 1 In the small hours of January 3, two hours before daylight, the two treacherous companies left the camp at Portna, but shortly afterwards returned followed by their Irish allies. Captain Glover's and Captain Peeble's com- panies were asleep, and the sentries, seeing their comrades approaching, suspected nothing until a sudden volley re- vealed the treachery. It was then too late to arm, and sixty were killed, either in their beds or struggling to rise. 8 A few escaped hi the darkness and confusion. The rebels possessed themselves of the arms and ammunition of the murdered men, and then burned a village known as the Cross, killing every British man, woman or child that they could find, after which they passed on to Balleymoney, where they did the like.' A cooper named James McDonnell, belonging to Ballymena, who was taken prisoner and was marched along with the rebels, was released next day by order of Donald Gorm McDonnell of Killoquin. This man swore in his deposition that, on his way home, he saw the corpses of at least 100 men, women and children who had been murdered the day before. 4 The Rev. George Hill, who, as biographer of the McDon- nells, has to gild all the deeds of that family, makes an attempt to convert this atrocious act of treachery and cold-blooded murder into a heroic feat of arms. The account of the affair which he gives in his McDonnells of Antrim is worthy of study as an illustration of the way in which an enthusiastic writer, by an adroit distortion of facts, can transform even the most infamous acts into deeds of glory. " McDonnell," he writes, " now felt that he had only one course left, to clear the passage across the river if possible by a desperate assault. He determined, therefore, with his two companies to spring upon the six [OT'CJ companies of the enemy ; but he felt, at the same time, how hopeless must be the attack unless it could be made under circumstances favourable to his numerically insig- nificant force. After carefully calculating the chances, he attacked Stewart early in the morning of January 2, and when daylight had appeared he had scattered the 1 Dep. of Fergus Fullerton. 2 Dep. of Gilduffe O'Cahan (the father of Manus and Tirlough Oge). 3 Dep. of Allan Carte and Robert Hamill. * Dep. of James McDonnell. 1642] ATTACK ON BALLYMONEY HOUSE 205 enemy in all directions, leaving several dead in their encampment and some even in their beds." l There is suggestio falsi in every word of this laboured apology for a very dastardly deed, but there is more than suggestio falsi in some of the statements made ; there is deliberate misrepresentation ; for there were not six com- panies attacked, but two, the other four under Stewart being away at Artagarvey House, so that even Hill's plea that the numerical inferiority of the McDonnells and of the Irish forced them to the unpleasant necessity of murdering their comrades in their beds, falls to the ground. From Ballymoney, the rebels marched on under the command of James McCollkittagh and the three O'Cahans (Cormack Reagh O'Cahan had by this time joined his two brothers) to Ballintoy House, the property of Mr. Archibald Stewart. The garrison and inmates of this house were under the joint command of Mr. Robert Fullerton and Mr. Archibald Boyd. They were summoned to surrender under promise of quarter and safe conduct to Carrickfergus or Coleraine, but these overtures were very wisely declined. Two attacks were then made upon the house, during one of which an improvised battering-ram was used upon the main entrance ; but both attacks were beaten off and six of the assailants were killed. Discouraged by this repulse, the rebels then abandoned the siege and passed on west- ward along the coast to Dunseverick, where they killed Alastair McNeil's daughter, Guy Cochrane's son and Robert McCurdie's son. On learning of these murders, a man named John Spence shut himself up in his house with his sword drawn and a determination to fight to the last. He was, however, eventually persuaded by a neighbour of his named Connacher O'Cahan to give up his sword upon promise of life and liberty. No sooner had he done so than he was killed, together with his wife and mother. 1 The rebel force slept at Dunseverick and the following day moved on to Dunluce, where they offered Captain Digby safe conduct to Coleraine if he would yield the Castle. This proposal he stoutly declined, whereupon they burned the town and killed a man named Gait, whom by some mischance they found outside the Castle walls. On the following day they went on to Oldstone Castle near Clough, * Hill's McDonnells of Antrim, p. 63. * Dep. of David Grey and Donnell Spence. 206 PROGRESS OF REBELLION IN ANTRIM [CHAP, xin being joined on the march by another party of Irish under Art Oge O'Neil. The Castle at Oldstone was full of refugees, and to these and to the garrison James McCollkittagh made the usual promise of safe conduct to Carrickfergus if the Castle were surrendered. The Castle was under the com- mand of Walter Kennedy, a gentleman to whom we learn that the Earl of Antrim owed fl^OO. 1 Either through folly or owing to lack of provisions, Kennedy accepted the terms offered and opened the Castle gates. Several women with babies in their arms were at once killed in the court- yard, the garrison were made prisoners, and a party of sixty women, children and old men were sent off under escort on the road to Carrickfergus, as had been agreed in the terms of surrender. Before they had gone two miles on their way the entire party were murdered at the Glen- ravel Water by a party of natives led by a man named Toole McHugh O'Hara.' An apologetic explanation of this brutal act of treachery was afterwards given by James McCollkittagh in a letter which he wrote to Mr. Archibald Stewart.' " Oldstone," he wrote, " was rendered unto me, and all they within had good quarter, only the Clandeboye soldiers and the two regiments from beyond the Bann [O'Hagans and O'Cahans] were a little greedy for pillaging, which could not be helped. As for the killing, none of my soldiers [the McDonnells] dare do it, but the common people that are not under rule do it in spite of our teeth. But as for your people they killed of women, children and old people about three score." * 1 Hill's McDonnells of Antrim, Appendix XIX. Dep. of John Blair. 3 Mr. Hill, in his McDonnells of Antrim, makes some curious mistakes in connection with all these movements. He describes Alastair McColl- kittagh McDonnell as having been in command at Portna and in the sub- sequent operations which terminated in the surrender of Oldstone. The real commander was James McCollkittagh, Alastair's brother. This is made quite clear by the deposition of Fergus Fullerton. This initial mistake has evidently puzzled Mr. Hill as to the identity of the James McDonnell who wrote the letter about Oldstone to Stewart. He finally tells us that this was Sir James McDonnell, the son of Sir Alexander of Kil- conway. This is another mistake. The writer was James McCollkittagh McDonnell as indeed is made evident by the text of the letter itself. " Old- stone was rendered unto me," he writes. If further proof were wanted it is to be found in the deposition of Donald Gorm, who states that he visited James McCollkittagh McDonnell at Oldstone Castle, which he had made his residence " after it had been surrendered to him." (See Hill, p. 70.) * Hickson's Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, Appendix. 1642] MASSACRE AT OLDSTONE 207 This letter makes it quite clear that the women killed in the courtyard were killed by camp-followers. Roger Pike, in his " Narrative," tells us that both the Irish and the English armies were invariably followed by a crowd of these beasts of prey, known as Pillagers, " who cut off the wounded and spared neither woman nor child, either of the British or of their own race." 1 The aim of these creatures was simply the clothes and other accoutrements of those they murdered. In attempting to understand the final part of McDonnell's letter, it must be borne in mind that his object, throughout, is to vindicate the honour of his Highlanders, and his letter maintains that these did none of the killing at the Castle. He goes on to say that the killing of the sixty women, children and old men was the work of Stewart's " own people," which can only refer to Tirlough O'Cahan's com- pany, which had originally belonged to Stewart's regiment. After the Portna massacre, the remnant of Stewart's regiment withdrew to Coleraine, while James McCollkittagh and his heterogeneous following returned to Ballymoney, which, for the time being, he constituted his headquarters. Later on, when pressing the siege of Coleraine, he advanced his headquarters to within a mile or two of that town. The New Year's epidemic of murder in Co. Antrim was not confined to the bands that followed McCollkittagh. Many murders were committed in the Ballycastle district, the majority of which were attributed to the Dowager Countess of Antrim. This lady, who had formerly been Alice O'Neil, daughter of the Earl of Tyrone, was accused of seizing the occasion to murder all those around Bally- castle to whom she owed money. Among these were Janet Speir and Thomas Robinson, John Irvine and his wife and daughter, John Arthur the miller, and William Griffin ; three old women (not named) were also seen lying dead outside the walls of the Castle. Lady Antrim was after- wards tried for having prompted these murders, but it was not found possible from the evidence to bring the guilt definitely home to her. The outrages above described were almost immediately followed by two retaliatory massacres from the other side. About Christmas time a man named Barnet Lindsay rode into the town of Antrim at the head of a troop of 1 Roger Pike's " Narrative," Ulster Journal of Archaeology. 15 208 PROGRESS OF REBELLION IN ANTRIM [CHAP, xm forty horse from the neighbourhood of Tullahogue (on the other side of Lough Neagh). Sir John Clotworthy, who was at that time in command of the garrison at Antrim, was naturally glad to include such a useful body of men among the members of his garrison. The author of Warr of Ireland, an Irishman named Mulhollan from Co. Londonderry, who was an officer in Clotworthy 's force when Lindsay and his men rode in, tells us that the whole forty of them " were so burning with the spirit of vengeance " that they could not even bear to hear the name of an Irishman mentioned. 1 It seems fairly certain that Lindsay and his men were some of those who had gone with Sir Thomas Staples from east Tyrone to Newtownstewart at the beginning of the rebellion. Many of these men had afterwards been persuaded to return to their homes, which they found empty and burnt. All were under the impression that their wives and families had been murdered by the Irish. Mulhollan tells us that in some cases the missing ones turned up afterwards, but there can be little doubt that the majority were murdered. Anthony Stratford, who, as a prisoner in Charlemont for fourteen months, had every opportunity of acquiring first-hand information, deposed that 316 had been killed in the neighbourhood of Dungannon, 400 between Dungannon and Charlemont, and 1,200 in the parish of Killyman in Co. Tyrone. 8 The latter statement he had from Mr. Birge, the minister of the parish, who was himself murdered three months after making the statement. Sir Phelim himself made boast that he had exterminated all the British in the Auchnacloy promontory of the county known as the Large, and the evidence from every quarter tends to con- firm this statement. As in other districts where there were exterminatory massacres, a certain proportion of the hunted British no doubt found shelter in the houses of the friendly Irish, but even in these sanctuaries they would be hidden from the eyes of their despairing relatives. In any case, it is clear that Lindsay and his companions were fully convinced that their families had been murdered. Having no longer any homes or family ties, these men once more banded together and rode to the town of Antrim. Before 1 Warr of Ireland. 1 The capture on the first day of the rising of Dungannon, Mountjoy, Moneymore and Lissan deprived the British women and children in east Tyrone of any so-called refuge to which they could flee. 1642] THE TEMPLEPATRICK MASSACRE 209 they had been there a fortnight news came of the massacres at Portna, Ballymoney and Oldstone. The news seems to have fanned the smouldering vengeance of the Tyrone men into an active flame. Without saying a word to any other members of the garrison, they rode out quietly one night to Templepatrick in Ballymartin, about eight miles from Antrim, where they massacred a number of Irish men, women and children. Mulhollan says eighty were killed, but this is clearly incorrect, for an Irish witness named Donnell McGillmartin, whose mother, brother and father- in-law were among the victims, swore in his evidence that the number of those killed was twenty-six. Another Irish witness named Anne ny Corry, who had also lost some relatives in the massacre, gave the same figure of twenty-six in her evidence, so that it is reasonable to accept that number as correct. All the murdered people were tenants of Captain Upton, who had bought Castle Norton, and with it the Templepatrick property, from Sir Humphrey Norton in 1616. Captain Upton, who is de- scribed as a humane and moderate man, was away from home at the time. His Lieutenant, John Garvin, is said to have helped Lindsay in his bloody work. 1 About the same time a similar occurrence took place in Magee Island,* but whether inspired by the example of the Templepatrick massacre, or whether as an inde- pendent outburst is not quite clear. It would seem to have been organised and led by a Ballycastle man named John Irvine, in revenge for the murder by Tirlough O'Kelly of his two daughters Jane and Margaret Irvine a week before. 1 It is important to note that the evidence as to the act of provocation which resulted in this massacre is given by an Irish witness named Grany O'Mullan. In 1653 a Cromwellian commission was appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the Magee Island mas- sacre, and the evidence of many of the Magees and others of the Irish living on the peninsula was taken. The de- positions of these witnesses are still extant, but it cannot be claimed that they leave the reader very much wiser than they found him. All that they make clear is that a certain number of people were killed on Magee Island during the first week in January 1642, which in those days was Dep of Donnell McGillmartin. See Dep. of John Marshall. 3 Dep. of Grany O'Mullan. 210 PROGRESS OF REBELLION IN ANTRIM [CHAP, xm known as January 1641, the official year not commencing till April. The real point of importance established by these depositions is the date, which all agree in fixing as the first week in January. The importance of the date lies in the fact that Irish writers have striven very hard to place the date of the Magee Island massacre early in November 1641, with the idea of representing all the earlier massacres of British as acts of justifiable retaliation for this massacre. The exact contrary was the truth. Both the Templepatrick and the Magee Island murders were the acts of men driven frantic by the unprovoked butchery of their wives and children. They must always be viewed as horrible acts, but by so much less horrible than the acts which provoked them. The Irish version of the Magee Island affair calls for a passing consideration, if for no other reason than as an illustration of the methods employed in compiling the histories upon which Irish public opinion is built up. In the Politician's Catechism, an anonymous work by R. S., published in 1662, we find the following passage : "About the beginning of November 1641 the English and Scotch forces in Knockfergus [Carrickfergus] murdered in one night all the inhabitants of the island of Magee, in number about 3,000 men, women and children, all innocent persons, in a time when none of the Catholics of that country were in arms or rebellion." In a note is added : " This was the first massacre committed in Ireland on either side." : This statement is taken up and reprinted in Hugh O'Reilly's Genuine History of Ireland, published in 1742, and has since been repeated in every Irish history dealing with the 1641 rising. The falseness of the statement is conclusively proved by the depositions of the Irish witnesses them- selves, all of whom were in agreement as to the date being January 1642. In the same connection the following facts are of interest. In the " Remonstrance of the Irish Roman Catholics," presented to the King's Com- missioners at Trim in March 1642, which sets out all the alleged reasons which induced the Irish to take up arms, no reference is made to any massacre in Magee Island. Again, in the " Humble Apology of the Irish Roman Catholics for taking up Arms " there is no mention of the Magee Island massacre, nor is it mentioned in the second 1 See McSkimmin's History of Carrickfergus, p. 43. 1642] MAGEE ISLAND MASSACRE 211 " Remonstrance," which followed later. This would seem to make it perfectly clear that the claim that the massacres of British were in retaliation for the Magee Island massacre had not entered into the heads of the Irish in 1642, but was a growth of much later date. We may now leave the question of dates and consider the number of victims. Irish writers claim that 8,000 were killed. This figure is remarkable in view of the fact that, as late as 1819, a census of the little peninsula known as Magee Island only returned 1,931 inhabitants, of whom a large proportion were British Protestants. 1 In 1642 the population must have been very much smaller, and even at that time there was a large proportion of Hills and other British among the residents. The Hills, in fact, sheltered and saved many of the Irish during the massacre. Perhaps the climax of absurdity is reached in the at- tempt to throw the blame of the massacres on the Scottish forces at Carrickfergus. This is very evidently part of the general scheme for manufacturing an excuse for the rising out of the Irish fear of a general massacre by Scottish troops, to which Mr. Lecky lends such a respectful ear. It is unfortunate for the effect of the argument that it is on record that no Scottish troops reached Ulster till April 1642, five months after the date on which the Irish claim that the massacre took place. The treaty for the sending over of the Scottish army was not even signed till January 24, 1642. The sixth article of the treaty provides " that a man-of-war or some merchant ships be sent from Bristol, Westchester or Dublin to Lochryan for the safe convoy and guard of the troops.'? This disposes very conclusively of the fiction as to the massacre having been the work of Scottish troops. The depositions of the Irish witnesses point to three men as having been especially conspicuous in prosecuting the work of revenge John Irvine, John Marshall and a man named Boyd. As to the number of victims there is no reliable guide, but the evidence of the depositions suggests that they were few. Mulhollan, after describing the Templepatrick massacre, tells us that " a like number were killed in Magee Island." We have had clearly established by two 1 McSkimmin's History of Carrickfergus. 1 " Treaty with Soots," Thurloe's State Paptrt. 212 PROGRESS OF REBELLION IN ANTRIM [CHAP, xra Irish witnesses, close relatives of the victims, that the number killed at Templepatrick was twenty-six, which would lead one to suppose that about the same number perished at Magee Island. Reid's opinion was that the actual number of victims was thirty, and that the figure of 3,000 was obtained by the simple process of adding two ciphers. The raids at Templepatrick and Magee Island furnish the first examples of retaliatory massacres on the part of the British (the raid from Keilagh, already described, was subsequent). By comparison with the wholesale massacres of British, the number killed was insignificant ; but we may rest assured that, during transmission to central Ulster, they would grow at every step, till they reached dimensions sufficiently sensational to arouse the spirit of revenge. In any case, it is an unassailable fact that something aroused the ferocity of the Irish after the turn of the year, for where they had previously been killing the British prisoners by tens they now began killing them by hundreds. Whether it was the retaliatory massacres in Antrim that were responsible for this change for the worse, or the intervention of the extreme party among the priests, or Sir Phelim's ever-increasing des- peration cannot be decided with any certainty. It may well have been a combination of all three. It may well be, again, that the retaliatory massacres in Antrim small though they were in themselves were sufficient to en- courage the idea which was already in the heads of the Irish that " they must either destroy the English or the English must destroy them." l As the former alternative seemed the one to be preferred, they proceeded to put it in practice as far as their opportunities went. 1 See Examination of the Rev. George Creichton, p. 199. CHAPTER XIV PROGRESS OF THE REBELLION DURING FEBRUARY 1642 AT the close of the year 1641 Coleraine was the most crowded and miserable town in Ireland. The entire British population between the lower Bann and the Foyle had gradually made its way north to this one little town. Coleraine in 1641 had 100 houses surrounded by a turf ram- part. The numbers that crowded to it for safety required at least ten times this accommodation. The season was winter, and the food supplies very limited. The majority of the refugees were women, children and old men, ill fitted to resist long exposure to the cold and wet. The sufferings and the mortality were terrible. One of the refugees, an English clergyman, wrote to a friend outside that " from 100 to 150 were dying weekly." l Two thou- sand in all died within the walls during the first four months of the rebellion. " The living though scarce able to do it laid the carcasses of these dead persons in great ranks into vast and wide holes, laying them so close and thick as if they had packed up herrings together." ' The able-bodied men from among the refugees were formed as elsewhere into a defence corps commanded by Colonel Edward Rowley, who took general charge of all arrangements for the protection of the town. On February 10, 1642, Rowley, at the head of 400 men, marched out of Coleraine as far south as Garvagh, where he encountered Cormac O'Hagan at the head of 1,000 O'Hagans, O'Cahans and O'Mullans. O'Hagan divided his force into four parties, who, with loud yells, simul- taneously attacked Rowley from four different quarters. So terrifying were the yells that Rowley's men were seized with panic, and, without waiting for the encounter, 1 See Hickson's Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, vol. i. p. 202. * Dep. of James Redfern. 213 214 REBELLION DURING FEBRUARY 1642 [CHAP, xiv turned and ran. A great slaughter ensued, in which Colonel Rowley and the majority of his 400 men were killed ; only a few stragglers succeeded in reaching Coleraine. 1 It is a singular fact that, of the only three defeats in the field which the British sustained up to the date of Benburb, two were inflicted on the men of Coleraine. On Good Friday, 2 that is to say about six weeks after Rowley's defeat at Garvagh, Archibald Stewart, who had subsequently taken over command of the garrison, marched out of Coleraine in the direction of Ballymoney, presumably with the deliberate intention of giving battle to his cousin and one time friend Alastair McCollkittagh McDonnell, a gigantic warrior with a great fighting reputation, who had taken over command of the rebel force at Ballymoney from his brother James. Alastair had at the moment under his command a body of about 600 of the Route Highlanders and Irish, all of whom were on foot. Archibald Stewart had about the same number, of whom a considerable proportion were horsemen. The two forces met at Bun- dooragh near Ballymoney. 3 McDonnell skilfully enticed Stewart's horse into a bog, where they started floundering, whereupon McDonnell's men fired one volley and then, flinging away their muskets, charged down in the old Highland fashion, with sword in one hand and dirk in the other. The rout of Stewart's men was complete, and the majority were killed. A possible explanation of the poor show made by the Coleraine men on each of the above occasions may be found in the nerve-shattering privations to which they had been subjected since the commencement of the rebellion. Starved and sick refugees are not the material from which a commander would willingly select his army. In this connection, there is interest in the fact that the British force defeated at Julianstown was also composed of nerve-shattered refugees suddenly enlisted as soldiers. The behaviour of the men at the three above- named fights contrasts remarkably with that of the Lagan and Lisburn forces, and such others as were recruited from local colonists who had gone through no such trying experiences. 1 Warr of Ireland. * Ibid. Clogy places the date on February 10, but he is clearly in confusion between this fight and that at Garvagh. 8 Ibid. Clogy gives Laney as the name of the battle-field. 1642] TIRLOUGH OGE REPULSED FROM ANTRIM 215 The Bundooragh fight was considerably ahead, in point of date, of the Garvagh affair and the events that followed on it, and in order to keep events in their proper sequence it becomes necessary to return to the beginning of February. On the same day as the Garvagh fight, i.e. on February 11, Tirlough Oge, at the head of an army of 4,000 men, appeared with hostile demonstrations outside the town of Antrim. For two days Sir Phelim's brother paraded his army up and down before the town with much noise of drums and trumpets, but without making any attempt to attack. 1 On the 13th, however, encouraged by the news of Cormac O'Hagan's victory at Garvagh, Tirlough Oge resolved to imitate the victor's tactics on that occasion and to repeat, if possible, his success. In this expectation he divided his force into four parties of 1,000 each, which attacked the town simultaneously from different quarters. Sir John Clotworthy was away at the time, and the garrison of 700 was under the command of Major Ellis and Captains Clotworthy, Houston and Langford. Under the direction of these four officers, a defence was put up before which Tirlough Oge's attack failed at every point. His army was thrown into hopeless confusion and took refuge in flight, pursued by the victorious garrison. The remnants of it made for Oldstone, and finally went on to Larne, burning everything in their way as they went. 8 There can be no doubt that Tirlough Oge's expedition against Antrim was a very carefully prepared effort, the main object of which was the capture of the Lough Neagh fleet of boats which had their anchorage at Antrim. The disappointment at the defeat was correspondingly great, and found its immediate expression in a series of cold-blooded massacres in Armagh and Tyrone, of which the following are typical examples : Shortly after the middle of February Neil Oge O'Quin, accompanied by his sons and a man named James McVeagh, came to Lissan, of which place he was Governor, and there deliberately put to death a number of the British prisoners. The exact number killed on this occasion is uncertain, but we know at any rate of the death of the following : John Young, James Young, John Armstrong, Andrew Carter and his wife and two children, and James Steile with his wife and five daughters. James Steile, junior, i Warr of Ireland. * IWd. 216 REBELLION DURING FEBRUARY 1642 [CHAP, xiv the brother of the five girls killed, was a witness of the whole transaction, but managed to escape. 1 After per- petrating these cold-blooded murders at Lissan, O'Quin and his gang then passed on to the neighbouring village of Moneymore. There is a strong probability that Cormac O'Hagan, the Governor of Moneymore and the victor at Garvagh, was away at the time, for he had an important command farther north among the troops which were investing Coleraine. The evidence, as far as it goes, tends to suggest that Cormac O'Hagan while the most successful of Phelim's commanders in the north was a humane man, who would have been no party to the massacre of defenceless women and children. In any event, his name does not appear in connection with the outrages, which were the work in both places of the O' Quins and McVeaghs. A graphic account of the doings at Moneymore is furnished by the evidence of Lady Staples, who, from the window of her own Castle, where she had been im- prisoned since the first day of the rising, had a clear view of all that passed. In her own words " she did see the Scotch woman [mentioned in the depositions of the Red- ferns] and her five small children, with several others of the British nation, driven along by the rebels to be mur- dered ; and she saw the rebels at that time cutting and slashing the poor British as they passed by her window, among whom was one Archie Laggan miserably cut, his two arms being half cut off and one of his ears cut off and hanging down, besides several other grievous wounds, in so much that she heard him cry out and beg them for God's sake to let him lie down and die." * Besides the unhappy Archie Laggan and the Scotch woman with her five small children, we have the names of several others who figured in this dismal procession, to wit : Andrew Laggan, Thomas Hartspur, Edward Ludnam, Thomas Ludnam, Andrew Young and his son John, Edward Jennings, a woman, name unknown, and the Rev. Mr. Matchett, rector of Magherafelt,' the last- named having been imprisoned in the house of Lieutenant Thursby since October. 4 1 Dep. of James Steile. 3 Dep. of the Redferns, father and son. 1 Dep. of Lady Staples. Reid. 1642] TWENTY-FOUR BURNED IN A COTTAGE 217 A very similar scene of butchery, but on a larger scale, was enacted at the same time at Kilmore, Co. Armagh, from which it would seem that the spirit of destruction had been generally aroused throughout northern Ulster. The massacre at Kilmore was not only more extensive than those at Lissan and Moneymore, but was also of a more horrible nature. One incident was particularly dreadful. Twenty-seven British men, women and children mostly women and children were driven into a thatched cottage belonging to an old woman named Mrs. Anne Smith, who lived there with her daughter Margaret Clarke and her grandchildren. After the prisoners had been confined within the cottage, a mob armed with pikes, skeans and bludgeons, headed by a woman named Jane Hamskin, set fire to the thatch in several places. The cottage soon became a furnace, and in the end the roof fell in on twenty-four charred bodies. Mrs. Smith and her daughter escaped through a hole in the wall which they knew of, but the existence of which was concealed by the smoke from all the other inmates, except a small boy named Johnny Wood (whose mother and sister were burnt). The two women, on emerging from the house, were knocked on the head with bludgeons and left for dead, but afterwards recovered, as also did the boy, who was, however, badly burnt. 1 The details of this incident are most clearly established, for not only have we the evidence of Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Clarke, who escaped the holocaust after being shut up in the cottage, but of several other deponents, who were, at the time, prisoners among the Irish, and from whom we get a precise list of those who perished. These were Richard Jenny, Frances Wood and one of her children (the other escaped), Elizabeth Shipley, Alice Butterworth and her two children, Ralph Hill and his wife, Alice Throwe, her husband and three children, two children belonging to Mrs. Goodall, James Gill and his wife and three children, John Martin, James Metcalf and Mary Metcalf. Mrs. Constable, in her deposi- tion, adds the following details : " The outcries, lamen- tations and shriekings of those poor murdered persons was exceedingly loud and pitiful, yet did nothing prevail nor mollify the hardened hearts of their murderers, but i Dep of Anne Smith, Margaret Fillis, Jane Grace, Christian Stanhaw, Eleanor Fullerton, Captain Perkins, Ellen Matchett and Joan Constable. 218 REBELLION DURING FEBRUARY 1642 [CHAP, xiv they most boldly made brag thereof, and took pride and glory in imitating their cries and in telling this deponent and her husband how the little children gaped when the fire began to burn them." 1 The burning of the inmates of Mrs. Smith's cottage, so far from satisfying the vengeance of the Irish, seems to have stimulated it, for on the following day they added to the number of their victims Euphemie Clarke and her child, Elizabeth Smith, Goodie Beare, Mary Smith and her six children, John Wing and his wife, Jane Armstrong and three children, Jane Colt and two children (their father had already been hanged), William Bell and his wife, Ellen Millington (very barbarously), John Potter and his wife and three children, one of whom Cormac O'Hugh dragged out from under the bed by its ankles and killed by knocking out its brains against the wall. 2 The Potters' servant, Joan Brian, was also killed. Joan Constable, who furnishes the details of this massacre, was stripped to the skin, but escaped death by being taken under the protection of Cormac O'Hugh. Her husband, Gabriel, and' his mother, who was over eighty, had been killed early in November by Patrick O'Hagan. Joan herself had since found shelter in the house of Mrs. Doyne at Hockley. On the occasion of the February massacre she appears to have kept by Cormac O'Hugh's side throughout the massacre probably as her only means of safety for she was a witness to his murder of the Potters' children. At the end of the day she was conducted back by Cormac O'Hugh himself to Mrs. Doyne's house, where she joined her sister, Ellen Matchett. 1 Dep. of Joan Constable. 2 Ibid. CHAPTER XV THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE MASSACRES THE general mania for massacre in the early part of 1642 seems to have been primarily due to Tirlough Oge's defeat at Antrim, aided no doubt by exaggerated reports received of the massacres of Irish at Templepatrick and Magee Island, but it was also, beyond question, due in part to the introduction of religion as an inflammatory agency. It would seem as though Sir Phelim O'Neil, Rory Maguire and the other Irish leaders, feeling that the tide of revolution was setting in less decidedly, and cer- tainly less successfully, than they had anticipated, urged upon the more fanatical among the priests to bring to bear every religious engine at their disposal, with a view to stimulating a hatred of the British, which was by no means as universal or as acute as they desired. The Christmas massacres at Kinard, and the Ballinrosse and Carrickmacross massacres at the New Year, were all conducted by priests, whom we may confidently assume to have been of the fanatical firebrand pattern. These are the only recorded cases in Ulster in which we find priests prominently superintending massacres, but it is quite clear, from the evidence of the depositions, that, from the beginning of the year 1642, there was a deter- mined attempt to introduce religious fanaticism as an additional incentive to the acute Anglophobia at which Sir Phelim aimed. The Irish were told that it was as lawful to kill a heretic as it was to kill a dog or a pig, 1 and, as practically all the seventeenth century colonists were heretics, this was only another way of saying that it was as lawful to kill the English and the Scotch as it was to kill dogs. It is a matter of certainty that the better- * Dep. of Mr. Nicholas Simpson. 219 220 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH [CHAP, xv class priests would combat such a doctrine with all the influence of which they were capable, but it is a matter of equal certainty that the incendiary clerics would have the easier and the more popular task. The doctrine of murder in the name of God, when once seized upon by the popular imagination, is not easily extinguished ; nor is Ireland a country where unpopular doctrines are ever very ardently preached by those in authority, whether lay or clerical. The motto of the nation is rather to go with the tide, and if possible in advance of it, no matter in what direction it may be setting. The primary reason which, at this point in the contest between colonists and natives, suddenly brought religion to the front line, is to be found, we may be sure, in the ever-growing belief of the Irish that " they must either destroy the English or the English must destroy them." This belief was no doubt genuinely held by the leaders and, in their case, the belief was fully justified. They had offended past any possible hope of forgiveness, and they no doubt reasoned that their term of respite from the judgment with which they were faced would be pro- longed by the total extirpation of the race from whom retribution was, in the end, to be expected. The rank and file from their very obscurity had obviously less to fear from the sword of justice than had the leaders, and it may have been the leaders' consciousness of this fact that prompted them to enlist the services of the fire- brand priests. The question, however, as to the exact motive that was responsible for the introduction of ex- treme measures must always remain undecided. All that we know for certain is that the responsibility did not rest with the executive body of the Roman Catholic Church. The incendiary efforts of such priests as Sir Phelim was able to enlist were not only contrary to the Multifarnham Edict, but evoked unqualified condemnation from the General Assembly of Roman Catholic Bishops and Clergy who met in the spring of 1642 at Kilkenny. Nevertheless it is certain that the crusade preached by the firebrands had its effect even on the better educated ; for we learn that, in the spring of 1642, Tirlough Oge, who had for months treated his prisoner, Mr. Nicholas Simpson, in a friendly fashion, suddenly turned upon him a gloomy countenance, and said that he could no longer befriend 1642] CATHOLIC CONDEMNATION OF ATROCITIES 221 him, as he was now convinced that it was a deadly sin to harbour a heretic. 1 The General Assembly of Roman Catholic Bishops and Clergy which was summoned to deal with the new situation, met at Kilkenny on May 10, 1642, and sat till the 18th, on which day it passed resolutions in strong condemnation of all cruelties and robberies practised upon Protestants. It further threatened with excommunication " all mur- derers, maimers, strikers, thieves and robbers." All Ordinaries and Roman Catholic priests were exhorted to put a stop to the prevailing atrocities by all the means at their disposal. 1 The intentions of the General Assembly of Bishops, etc., were no doubt excellent, but, by the time they had passed their resolutions, the work of exter- mination in central Ulster was all but complete, and the opportunities for massacre in other parts of the province were a thing of the past ; so that the Kilkenny resolutions might just as well have been left unpassed, for all the good they worked. Whatever the cause may have been whether religious fanaticism, racial hatred, or the growth of the idea, which had now taken firm hold (and which one cannot doubt was encouraged by both the lay and clerical sections of the exterminatory party), that the Irish must either destroy the British or be destroyed by them the fact stands out that, with the advance of the year 1642, the massacres of British prisoners in the unprotected districts assumed wholesale proportions. The first indication of this change of policy came in the form of a notice issued by Sir Phelim to the effect that he could no longer protect the British survivors in the Blackwater district, but that he would undertake to convoy in safety such as wished to go to Coleraine, Lisburn or Dromore. The conditions under which the survivors of the British prisoners were living were miserable in the extreme, 1 and the offer was eagerly accepted. Convoys numbering from 80 to 150 set out joyfully from Tynan, Kinard, Killyman, Loughgall, Kilmore, and even from the Glasslough district of Mona- ghan, for the nearest points held by the British. On the road, these convoys were joined by small detached parties 1 Examination of Mr. Nicholas Simpson. John Curry, Letter to Walter Harris, s See dep. of Elizabeth Price. 222 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH [CHAP, xv of British who had so far been sheltered in the houses of the friendly Irish ; together they went on towards their supposed destination, but they got no farther than the Bann. At Portadown those bound for Lisburn were told to go on and join their friends, but the middle part of the bridge had been removed, and to go on meant a long drop into the icy waters of the Bann, flooded with the winter rains. Those who resisted were forced over the brink with swords, pikes and skeans, and in the end the escort, relieved of its charge, went back for a further supply of refugees. Those bound for Dromore met the same fate at Scarva bridge. One lot of eighty, very early in March, crossed the Bann in safety by the Scarva bridge and actually reached Co. Down. Here the escort handed them over to a party of Irish under the command of Phelim McArt Brian O'Neil, who undertook to bring them to Dromore, but actually took them to Lough Kernan. The lake was covered with thin ice, and on to this thin ice Phelim McArt and his men flung the babies of the party as far as they could across the ice. The mothers followed in an attempt to save their children and broke the surface of the ice. The whole eighty were eventually drowned except one man and one woman. 1 There can be no doubt that the convoy system was adopted because it induced the British to go voluntarily to their death, and for this reason the first drownings were mainly carried out in the distant waters of the Bann instead of in the Blackwater, Callan or Tollwater. As none came back to tell the tale, it was assumed that the earlier convoys had safely reached their destination, and others were only too ready and eager to follow in their trail. It is quite certain, however, that the pretence of a happy convoy, protected by a friendly escort, was not long kept up after the refugees were once fairly on the road. A tanner named William Clarke was the first to come back and tell those at home what really happened on these expeditions. Clarke actually got as far as the bridge at Portadown, and was saved at the last moment by Hugh O'Neil, who was the leader of the party, or at any rate one of those in command. O'Neil at the same time saved two other men named William Taylor and George Morris 1 Dep. of Peter Hill, High Sheriff of Down. 1642] BROWNINGS AT PORTADOWN 228 and a woman named Mrs. Elizabeth Price. Why this woman was saved is not known. She herself would probably have preferred to follow the others into the Bann, for she had to stand by and witness the murder of her five little children, Adam, John, Anne, Mary and Jane. Her husband, Captain Ruys Price, had been killed by Sir Phelim's orders early in the rising. " The aforesaid children," William Clarke afterwards deposed, " were most barbarously used, by forcing them to go fast with pikes and swords thrust into their sides. They murdered three by the way, and the rest they drove to the river aforesaid and there forced them to go from the bridge, which was cut down, and with their pikes and swords and other weapons thrust them down headlong into the said river." 1 A woman named Campbell, when at the ex- tremity of the bridge, seized the man who was forcing her over, and, holding him tight in her arms, jumped into the river. Both were drowned.* Clarke and Taylor were saved because they were tanners by trade, and, from that time on, they and Thomas Taylor, another tanner and a brother of William, were kept to work for Hugh O'Neil. The Taylors' mother, however, and their little brother Henry, who were without technical skill, were drowned by David McVeagh in the Tollwater. The number of those drowned at these two bridges is ascertainable within broad limits. Sir Phelim himself boasted that he had drowned 680 at Scarva bridge. 1 The deposition of Margaret Bromley, who was a prisoner with the Irish, goes far towards corroborating this figure, for she swore in her evidence that the Irish had, to her knowledge, drowned at Scarva four separate batches numbering respectively 100, 80, 60 and 50. 4 In the case of Portadown the lowest estimate places the number of victims at 308 and the highest at 1,000.' Mulhollan, the author of Warr of Ireland, makes an effort to minimise the numbers drowned at Portadown by reproducing a conversation in which he took part. " The numbers drowned at Portadown," he writes, " ex- ceed not ninety persons. My ground for the same is that I had the same account from an Englishman who had the 1 Dep. of William Clarke. 3 Dep. of Dr. Robert Maxwell. Dep. of James Shaw. * Dep. of Margaret Bromley. 6 See Dep. of Gertrude Carlisle, Owen Frankland, Richard Newbury and Eleanor Fullerton. 16 224 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH [CHAP, xv good fate to escape that day, and from some of the Irish who were spectators." l He adds the further information that all those so drowned were inhabitants of Portadown, and that they were drowned in revenge for the Magee Island massacre. Both these statements may be true, but it does not seem possible that they can both apply to the same occurrence. We have the sworn testimony of Philip Taylor, a Portadown man, who deposed that 196 persons, all residents in Portadown, were drowned there by Toole McCann towards the beginning of the rising.* Mrs. Price deposed that 115 were drowned there on November 2. Both these statements probably have reference to the same occurrence, which was the drowning of the British residents at Portadown early in the rising, so as to guard against any attempt on their part to interfere with the use of the bridge by the rebels. This, however, was long before the Magee Island massacre. The drowning of convoys from a distance belongs to a later date. In any event, it is clear that Mulhollan's informant was an eye-witness of one drowning occurrence only, for he speaks of " that day." It is common ground that a number of convoys were de- spatched to Portadown at intervals during the first seven months of the rising. None of the depositions make mention of any very large numbers drowned there in one day (Philip Taylor's 196 is the largest, and this is probably an exaggeration), but they all speak of various batches of prisoners from the Blackwater district that were sent to Portadown to meet their death, generally under the charge either of Toole McCann or of Manus O'Cahan. Anthony Stratford's evidence is to the effect that these batches generally numbered about forty, and that the total number drowned at Portadown was 308. Far greater numbers, according to him, were drowned in the Blackwater, Toll- water and Callan than at Portadown. Three hundred, he tells us, were drowned in one day in a mill-pool in the Tyrone part of Killyman. It is only in accordance with probability that the numbers drowned in the more conve- nient waters of the Blackwater and its tributaries should far exceed those that were conveyed at some expenditure of time and trouble to Portadown. When Owen Roe questioned the Irish as to the numbers of British that they had drowned, they replied that they had drowned about 1 Warr of Ireland. * Dep. of Philip Taylor. 1642] MURDER OF LORD CAULFIELD 225 400 at Portadown, but so many more in the Blackwater that they could not count them. 1 After the exposure of the convoy fraud by the return of William Clarke and Elizabeth Price, the trouble of taking the prisoners to the Bann was dispensed with, and they were drowned more conveniently in the rivers nearer at hand. Fifty-five persons, all tenants of Sir Phelim's, were drowned in the Blackwater at Easter.* Later on, we are told that, on one occasion, 200 were first murdered with knives on the bridge over the Blackwater and then thrown down into the water, so that for a time the river ran red.* The chief executioners in these acts of wholesale murder were Manus O'Cahan, Toole McCann, Owen McKenna, Patrick Devlin and Donnell O'Hagan. To the modern student of the rebellion, from a humani- tarian point of view, the wholesale murders of innocent people are very dreadful, but at the time owing to the humble status of the majority of the victims they made less stir than the murder of Lord Caulfield. This occurred on March 1, 1642. Caulfield was being transferred from his own Castle at Charlemont to Kinard, under the charge of Neil McKenna and Neil Modder O'Neil, and, as he was entering the gateway of the latter place, he was shot by one of the onlookers named Edmund Boy O'Hugh. Sir Phelim is said to have wept when he heard the news, and this may well be true, for great efforts were being made at the time to exchange Lord Caulfield for Lord Maguire, who was awaiting trial in the Tower. In any case, it is very certain that Lord Caulfield was worth far more to Sir Phelim alive than dead. None the less, it is quite clear that Lord Caulfield's murder was only a single in- cident in a comprehensive scheme of massacre, which was organised at that time in the Kinard district, for Mr. Darragh, Lord Caulfield's chaplain, and fifty others were killed on the same day.* It is probable that the inclusion of Lord Caulfield among the victims was an accident. Sir Phelim imprisoned the over-zealous O'Hugh in Armagh, and, when the latter effected his escape, which he did very shortly afterwards, he hanged two of the sentries. 6 It by Dep. of Elizabeth Price. Dep. of Wm. Skelton, Humphrey Stewart and John Hickman. " Relation " of Audley Mervyn. Dep. of Archie Simpson. Gilbert's Contemporary History, pt. vi. p. 381. 226 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH [CHAP, xv no means follows, however, that Sir Phelim did not connive at the prisoner's escape. Lord Caulfield's death had no immediate political result, but it had very disastrous results for Sir Phelim eleven years later, for it was Caulfield's brother who in revenge for this murder relentlessly hunted him down and eventually brought him to justice. CHAPTER XVI ORMONDE'S CAMPAIGN IN MEATH A BRIEF survey of the course of events at Drogheda, during the first three months of 1642, is necessary for a clear understanding of the progress of the rebellion. After the decisive defeat of the Irish before the walls on December 20, Coll McBrian determined that the surest and safest way to reduce the garrison was by starvation. This, with his large investing army, should have presented no very great difficulties, as it was well known that those within the walls were already in considerable straits, having nothing to live on except salt herrings, the continued use of which was breeding many strange diseases among them. Representations had been made to the Lords Justices on several occasions as to the great privations which were being endured by the garrison, and at length, on January 11, a small ship was sent round from Dublin laden with wine, biscuit and ammunition. The ship was small and the supplies on board were very limited, because as the Lords Justices were careful to explain it was desired, before sending larger supplies, to see whether it was practically possible to get a ship up the Boyne. The Irish, with a view to proving that this was not so, had sunk an old ship in mid-channel, and had, in addition, erected a strong boom across the river; but, in spite of these obstacles, the relief ship reached its destination without any difficulty. The success of this venture very nearly proved the undoing of the garrison, for, in their elation at the receipt of these welcome supplies, they lost their heads and caroused so freely on the wine which had been sent as to get extremely drunk. Information as to the state of the garrison was quickly conveyed by some traitor within the walls to Coll McBrian McMahon, with the result that, during the same night, 500 picked men were 227 228 ORMONDE'S CAMPAIGN IN MEATH [CHAP, xvi silently let into the town through a small disused gate opened for them by the same traitor or traitors. Accord- ing to Carte, who relies for his facts mainly on Bernard's Whole Proceedings, the town was now as good as taken, and, had the Irish either seized the Mill Mount on which were four guns which dominated the town, or opened the main gate to the whole Irish army, nothing could have saved the place. Instead, however, of taking either of these obvious courses, McMahon's 500 men, who had probably been too freely primed with whisky, started screeching and holloaing at the top of their voices. Tich- borne himself was one of the first to be awakened by the extraordinary noise, and, running out in his sleeping-clothes, he quickly realised the position of affairs and caused a drum to be beat. The inebriate members of the guard by degrees assembled, and, arming themselves with pikes, charged down on the invaders. The Irish had a great predilection for short stabbing pikes, which had their uses for certain work, but which, in a face-to-face encounter, were no match for the long pikes with which the garrison was armed, and McMahon's men were gradually beaten back to the gate through which they had entered, leaving 200 of their number dead within the walls. 1 The food supplies brought by the pinnace lasted a bare fortnight, at the end of which time real famine began to make its appearance. Tichborne sent Captain Cadogan to Dublin to explain the extremities to which the garrison was driven. So great, in fact, were the needs of Tichborne and his men that in spite of the great danger attending such operations foraging parties had to be sent out from time to time to see what they could get in from the country around. In encounters with the enemy these foraging parties proved so uniformly successful that, in the end, Tichborne was emboldened to attempt a more ambitious enterprise. A party under the command of Captain Mark Trevor was sent out to a place four miles distant from the town, where it was reported that some of the enemy's herds were being grazed ; and with such good success did they carry out their mission as to bring back to the starving garrison eighty cows and 250 sheep.* These welcome supplies carried them on till February 20, on which day two more ships arrived from Dublin, bringing a good i Bernard's Whole Proceedings. I Carte. 1642] END OF THE SIEGE OF DROGHEDA 229 supply of food and four companies of foot-soldiers as reinforcements. Sir Phelim, who had accurate information of all the intended movements of the Government both through Michael Doyne, junr., andlby means of a certain Mrs. May in Dublin, 1 knew in advance all about the proposed de- spatch of these ships, and he very wisely determined to make his supreme effort before the expected reinforcements arrived. He accordingly hurried down from the north at the head of 700 of his own men, and, taking over the com- mand of the investing force for the second time, organised a grand assault upon the town, which was timed to take place in the early morning of February 20, i.e. before the expected reinforcements should have had time to arrive. A number of scaling-ladders were provided, and the general arrangements were very complete ; but, though the assault was well thought out and admirably timed, it proved a complete failure. This was the last attack made upon the place by the Irish. Strengthened by the arrival of his four new companies, and invigorated by the fresh food supplies, Tichborne now began making daily sallies from the town, rather for pur- poses of war than of food supplies. In all such sallies his men met with invariable success. On March 3 Ormonde, with 3,000 men, left Dublin for the north. The moment the news of this advance reached Coll McBrian at Drogheda the siege was raised and the men engaged upon it were dispersed to their several counties ; the Leitrim and Cavan men as we have already seen contributed to the final capture, by the O'Reillys, of Keilagh and Croughan Castles. On the same day (February 20) that Sir Phelim made his last unsuccessful assault on Drogheda, Sir Richard Grenville and Colonel Monck arrived in Dublin from Eng- land with 400 horse and 1,500 foot. They brought with them, however, no money or provisions, both of which were very badly needed, no less in Dublin than in the sur- rounding country. The army pay was terribly in arrears. The Drogheda garrison had received no pay for seventeen weeks. 8 The rest of the army was in a very similar condition. All the country round Dublin and the Pale was wasted and produced nothing. Scarcity reigned everywhere. 1 See Dep. of Dr. Robert Maxwell. * Carte, 230 ORMONDE'S CAMPAIGN IN MEATH [CHAP, xvi The army was entirely fed by notes of credit issued to the merchants, who were themselves very scantily provided with the necessaries of life. In all these circumstances, the arrival of the new troops was by no means viewed by the Lords Justices as an unmixed blessing. There was far more urgent need for food and money than for men, and all additions to the latter increased the difficulties in regard to the former. In order to relieve the pressure in Dublin, the Lords Justices determined to send Ormonde north with a reconnoitring force of 3,000 men. Ormonde, who was Lieutenant-General of all the State Forces in Ireland, had just inflicted a very severe defeat on the rebels at Kilsalghen. The immediate effect of this victory was to reassure the Lords Justices as to their own safety and that of Dublin, as to which they had before been pe- culiarly nervous. They felt that it was at length safe to let Ormonde and his army out of sight of the metropolis, and he was accordingly instructed to proceed north and inflict all the damage possible on the persons and property of the rebels, but on no account to stay away more than eight days. In pursuance of these instructions, Ormonde advanced as far as Drogheda without encountering any opposition. Here he made a thorough examination of the defences of the town, and in view of their extreme dilapidation congratulated Tichborne on his remarkable achievement in successfully defending the town for so long. The investing force had now entirely disappeared, and Ormonde was strongly in favour of marching straight ahead and successively capturing Dundalk and Newry. He sent back a message to this effect to Dublin, but received in reply a peremptory order from the Lords Justices that he was on no account to advance north of the Boyne. The only concession they would make was that he should be allowed to stay out ten days instead of the eight originally allotted him. The obvious wisdom of Ormonde's advice was made very clear by the arrival of spies from Dundalk, who reported that Sir Phelim's hold on that place was anything but secure, his army being in fact in a state of mutiny. They reported that 500 men, whom he and Colonel Plunket had recently led on to march against the British, had refused service. Two of the ringleaders had been hanged, whereupon the rest of the men threw 1642] ORMONDE'S EXPEDITION TO THE NORTH 281 down their arms and made off. This news meant that Dundalk was to be had for the asking, and Ormonde sent word back to Dublin to this effect, backed up by strong recommendations from all the leaders, including Ormonde himself, Tichborne, Lord Moore and Sir Simon Harcourt in favour of an immediate advance into the heart of the rebel country. Nothing, however, could shake the ob- stinacy of the Lords Justices, and on March 17 Ormonde in obedience to his orders returned to Dublin, having accomplished absolutely nothing beyond pillage. In considering and passing judgment upon the apparently criminal action of the Lords Justices in vetoing the further advance of Ormonde's troops, it must not be lost sight of that we are almost entirely dependent on Carte for any knowledge we may have of the real reasons for Ormonde's failure to push farther ahead. Carte was Ormonde's biographer and panegyrist and, as such, was necessarily bitterly hostile to the Lords Justices who were in the opposite political camp. As Ormonde's biographer, too, Carte was under the necessity of finding some excuse for his failure to take advantage of the opportunity that offered of crushing the rebellion and of rescuing the thou- sands of British who were at this time still prisoners with the Irish, and who were afterwards massacred. The responsibility for Ormonde's return is no light one for any man or group of men to bear. The desperate condition of the scattered British colonists in Ulster was a matter of common knowledge. It was practically certain that if deserted many of them would suffer speedy and, possibly, horrible deaths. It is incontestable that, had Ormonde continued his advance he could, in co-operation with the Drogheda garrison, and the Lisburn and Lagan forces, have carried all before him. Such being the case, the question cannot but arise in the mind of the reader of Carte's story as to whether Ormonde's return was actually forced upon him, as Carte would have us believe, by the obstinate attitude of the Lords Justices, or whether it was the result of some secret understanding between himself and Sir Phelim. Ormonde's subsequent intrigues with the native Irish in the interests of Charles I, and his ultimate alliance with them, cannot but strengthen the suspicion that the latter may have been the case, and that the Lords Justices' order to return may not have been so 232 ORMONDE'S CAMPAIGN IN MEATH [CHAP, xvi definite, or so opposed to Ormonde's advice, as Carte would wish us to believe. According to Carte, the Lords Justices were personally interested in the extension of the rebellion from the belief that, the longer it lasted, the greater would be the land-confiscations, in which they themselves would be substantial participators. Such a theory is not easy of acceptance. It is difficult to believe that any sane men could deliberately sacrifice the lives of thousands of their fellow countrymen to a problematical gain in real estate. Although there may be reasonable grounds for question- ing Carte's explanation of Ormonde's premature return to Dublin, there can be none for questioning the opinion which he expresses that the Ulster rebellion could have been entirely suppressed in the spring of 1642 had Or- monde's march to the north been extended. As events fell out, it dragged on miserably for another eleven years, and, before peace finally reigned, one-third of the popula- tion of Ireland had succumbed to the sword, famine or pestilence. The extent of the possibilities that lay before Ormonde's larger force was quickly demonstrated by the achievements of Tichborne's wearied little Drogheda garrison. On March 23 he left the town he had so long and gallantly defended, and, with as many of the garrison as he could spare, marched north as far as Atherdee, without meeting an enemy. At Atherdee there was an attempt to block his further progress, but he easily brushed it aside and passed on to Dundalk. This important place had been reoccupied by 800 of Sir Phelim's men the moment Or- monde had turned his back on the north. Tichborne's force was numerically much weaker, but he resolved notwithstanding to attack, and, on the night of March 26, carried the place by assault with the loss of eighteen men only, the majority of the Irish garrison making good their escape in the dark. 1 The garrisons necessary for the protection of Drogheda and Dundalk left Tichborne too weak to attempt the capture of Newry, and he returned with the balance of his force to Drogheda. 1 Carte. CHAPTER XVII THE LANDING OF MONRO ON April 15 General Robert Monro landed at Carrick- fergus with 2,500 Scottish troops, which was the total number that actually materialised out of the 10,000 which had been promised. 1 In order to provide accommodation for the new-comers, Colonel Chichester and Lord Conway shifted their quarters from Carrickfergus to Belfast. Monro remained a fortnight at Carrickfergus, organising and equipping his force, and then leaving 800 men in garrison he set out, in company with Chichester and Conway, for Newry, the capture of which place was held at the moment to throw all other considerations into the shade. The army, which included 1,600 of Monro's own men, 500 of Lord Conway's, 500 of Colonel Chichester's, 400 of Lord Ards' and 400 of Lord Clandeboye's, was much harassed by unseen enemies while penetrating the dense Kilwarlin woods. A short halt was called at Dromore, which was in utter ruins, every building except the church having been burned and levelled to the ground by Sir Con Magennis after his occupation of the place. On May 1, an island in Lough Brickland, strongly oc- cupied by the rebels, was captured after a lively exchange of shots, during which a bullet passed through Colonel Chichester's hair. As the shots produced no definite result, it was finally decided to invade the island. There was, however, only one boat available and that moored to the shore of the island. Six Scots volunteered to swim across and bring it back ; four were killed in the attempt, but the other two managed to loose the boat and bring it safe 1 Monro's force consisted of the Earl of Argyll's regiment, the Earl of Eglinton's regiment, the Earl of Glencairn's regiment, Lord Lindsay's regiment, Lord Sinclair's'regiment and Col. Hume's regiment (Reid). 233 284 THE LANDING OF MONRO [CHAP, xvn to shore. A party then crossed in the boat, the island was captured, and all the garrison put to the sword. Newry, which was only eight miles distant, was reached the same evening. As the army approached, the towns- people could be seen fleeing in all directions, and the town itself was practically abandoned. The Castle, however, was still defiant, and a certain number of the townspeople, either neglecting or disdaining to run away, took refuge inside. To Monro's summons to surrender, Hugh Magennis, the Constable, replied defiantly that he could easily hold out for seven months and intended doing so. On the second day, however, i.e. on May 3, he changed his mind, and upon the forcing of one of the gates surrendered unconditionally. All within the Castle, including Lady Magennis, were made prisoners, and Sir Edward Trevor, Sir Charles Poyntz and his son, and Captain Smith, who had been prisoners since October, were released. The Irish who were taken in the Castle were retained as prisoners for three days, but, on May 6, sixty men and two priests were executed on the bridge over the moat, some being shot and others hanged. 1 Shortly after the executions on the bridge, but on the same day, some of the soldiers got hold of 150 Irish women who had been brought out of the Castle, and had drowned twelve of them in the moat before Sir James Turner was able to stop them and rescue the remainder. 8 Some of the men were made examples of for these outrages. Turner throws the blame of the drowning of the women not so much on Monro as on Lord Conway, who, as Marshal of Ireland, was in supreme command. On the day following the surrender of Newry Castle, i.e. on May 4, Carlingford surrendered to Sir Henry Tichborne. Monro has been severely criticised for his severity to the Newry people, especially in view of the fact that the two English knights and Sir Charles Poyntz's son had been delivered back safe into British hands. There can be very little doubt, however, that the executions at Newry, as well as the murder of the women by the soldiery, were provoked by some massacres of British subsequent to the capture of Newry, of which the news had reached Monro 1 Monro's Despatch. * Memoirs of Sir James Turner. See also Passages in Ireland; Gilbert's Contemp. Hist., Appendix. 1642] MONRO'S SEVERITIES AT NEWRY 285 before the date of the execution. 1 We have this important fact established very clearly in Roger Pike's "Narrative," which confirms all the dates given in Monro's despatch and in Turner's Memoirs. According to all these three accounts the Castle was taken on May 3, and both the executions and the murders of the women took place on May 6. Those were not days when lengthy trials preceded executions under martial law. The inference, therefore, is that some- thing occurred between May 3 and May 6 which very greatly exasperated both the British commander and the common soldiers, and which found its expression in the execution of the prisoners and the murder of the women. The only occurrence which can have had such an effect would be the massacre of the British prisoners in Armagh. The final massacre in Armagh itself did not take place till May 6, i.e. on the same day as the executions at Newry, but prior to this occurrence several detachments of prisoners had been sent away from Armagh under escort for safe delivery to the British and had been done to death on the road. All these circumstances of the case, taken in con- junction with ascertained dates, leave little doubt that the particular occurrence which provoked the Newry execu- tions and murders was the massacre at Scarva bridge of some 60 British men, women and children (i.e. the exact number put to death at Newry) by Toole McCann on either the 3rd or 4th of May. Sir Henry Tichborne arrived at Newry from Carlingford on the 5th, and from him Monro reports that he could learn nothing as to the state of the country outside. This would be only natural, in view of the fact that Tichborne's road from Carlingford lay in the very opposite direction to Armagh and Scarva bridge. The Armagh massacres, which lasted from the 3rd till the 6th of May, were of a very dreadful character. They were the outcome of a decree passed at Killeevan by a convention of all the Irish leaders about the middle of April to the effect that all the surviving British in Ulster were to be exterminated, irrespective of age or sex. This terrible edict was issued in consequence of the general consternation which followed on the news of Monro's landing at Carrickfergus. 2 It was felt by the Irish leaders 1 See Roger Pike's " Narrative," Ulster Journal of Archeology. a Dep. of Robert Aldridge. 286 THE JLANDING OF MONRO [CHAP, xvn that retribution was at the door and that, before it fell upon them, it would be a satisfaction to have made the crime worth the penalty. This decision was as ill-judged as it was brutal, and it exercised a most disastrous effect on after events, for we learn from Sir James Turner's Memoirs that, from that time on, Monro's men gave no quarter, " a thing inhuman and unfavourable, for the cruelty of one enemy cannot excuse the inhumanity of another. 1 Sir Phelim, in his defence at his trial, admitted the May massacres, but pleaded that they were in retaliation for Monro's severities at Newry. That this was the exact reverse of the truth is conclusively proved by the dates given above, for the massacre of some of the detachments sent away from Armagh under escort was an accomplished fact before the date of the Newry executions, and the final massacre, at the burning of Armagh itself, took place on May 6, i.e. on the same day as the executions at Newry. We get this date fixed with great exactitude from the evidence of Mrs. Beare, who had two children killed in the massacre, and who states positively that the burning of Armagh took place " on the Friday following May Day " 2 i.e. the 6th. It seems perfectly clear, from a study of dates, that the executions at Newry were in the main provoked by the earlier stages of the May massacres. It must not be lost sight of, however, that, altogether apart from the Armagh massacres, there were certain other factors which were quite sufficient in themselves to constitute capital charges against the Irish executive in Newry. When Sir Con Magennis had first surprised Newry on October 23 all the British except those of superior rank had been stripped to the skin and told to quit the town on pain of instant death. They tried to make for Dromore, but many were killed on the way, and many more died of cold and hunger.* For these deaths according to the code of the times some retribution had to be exacted. Then, again, there was the very bad case of Mr. Tutch, Lieutenant Trevor and others. The circumstances were these. In January 1642 Lieu- tenant Trevor and his wife, Mr, Tutch, minister of Newry, and fourteen others had been sent by Sir Con Magennis to 1 Memoirs of Sir James Turner. * Dep. of Jane Beare. 8 Dep. of Thomas Richardson. 1642] MURDER OF MR. TUTCH AND OTHERS 287 Newcastle in Co. Down, where they were to have been shipped for Dublin in exchange for some Irish prisoners, who were to be released on their arrival. After the con- voy had set out from Newry, Sir Con suddenly repented of his determination to exchange his late prisoners, and personally pursued them to Newcastle, where he caused the entire party to be taken into an adjacent wood, hanged up naked to the branches by the wrists, and then hacked to death with swords. 1 It would seem as though Sir Con had actually done some of the hacking with his own hands. The only member of the party who managed to escape was a tapster named Thomas Green, who succeeded in bribing the man in whose custody he was to let him go. Sir Con and his brother Daniel are described as humane men, in particular contrast to their niece, Lady Iveagh, who, although very young, was of a cruel and sanguinary nature. It cannot be said, however, that the stripping and turning out of the Newry inhabitants at the end of October savours very strongly of humanity, though, by comparison with more conspicuous deeds of brutality, it would appear as a mild offence. Sir Con is said to have suffered such terrible pangs of remorse for the part he had played in the Newcastle butchery that he was for ever after haunted by fears of vengeance on the part of Mr. Tutch's spirit. 8 There can be little doubt that Sir Con's extraordinary behaviour is to be accounted for on the grounds that, between the dates of the sending off of his prisoners and his pursuit of them to Newcastle, he had received news probably grossly exaggerated of the massacres at Temple- patrick and Magee Island, and that, in a spirit of mad revenge, or rather of retaliation, he galloped after them to Newcastle and vented his fury on the naked bodies of the unfortunate seventeen. The May massacres are usually associated with the town of Armagh and the district immediately surrounding it, the reason being that more detailed particulars have reached us from those parts than from the districts which lay farther removed from the British headquarters. There is no doubt, however, that they were common to 1 Dep. of Elizabeth Croker, Capt. Henry Smith, Arthur Magennis, Roger Holland, Elizabeth Pearce, Peter Hill and Thomas Green. 2 Dep. of Elizabeth Croker. 288 THE LANDING OF MONRO [CHAP, xvii all central Ulster, i.e. to Monaghan, Armagh, Fermanagh and south-east Tyrone. In most places they started on May Day, and continued for the greater part of the week, but in some places the official date was anticipated, as for instance at Tandaragee, where, on April 30, the O'Hanlans killed James Bromley, Richard Wigton, William Todd and his wife and child, George Copeland and his wife, John Toft and his wife and three children, John Hartley, Anne Watkins, Anne Cooke and two children and John Adams. 1 The town of Armagh, however, was undoubtedly the chief place affected by the Killeevan decree, for this place had so far been the main sanctuary of such of the colonists in central Ulster as had been unable to make their way to any of the fortresses in occupation by the British. Hugh O'Connell, the first Governor of Armagh, and the two Crellys, Edmund and Teige, who held positions of authority in the town, had from the first adopted a humane and tolerant attitude, 8 and, as a consequence, the town soon became densely packed with British refugees who there sought and found friendly shelter from the bloody doings outside. Even when Tirlough Oge, Sir Phelim's brother, superseded O'Connell as Governor, there had been no change in the treatment of the British refugees. The better-class prisoners, such as Sir William Brownlow and Mr. Nicholas Simpson, were kept in Tirlough Oge's house, where, we are given to understand, they received con- siderate treatment, and those of humbler rank remained free from molestation. On either the 2nd or' 3rd May, probably the 3rd, Sir Phelim, accompanied by a number of his lieutenants, rode into Armagh with the intention of destroying the town by fire so as to make it untenable by Monro. Before this could be done, however, the British inmates had to be disposed of. In order to facilitate this operation Sir Phelim threw out a proposal that they should be sent off in various detachments under escort to the most convenient British centres. The British, having been well treated for six months past, had no premonition of their impending doom, and accepted with eagerness a proposal which seemed to offer them relief from their dangerous surround- ings. The first batch to be sent off was a party of twenty 1 Dep. of Margaret Bromley of Tandaragee. 1 Dep. of Jane Beare. 1642] ALEXANDER HOVEDON 239 for Newry, under the charge of Alexander Hovedon, which left Armagh on May 4. It is probable that these twenty were prisoners of importance, and were intended to be delivered safe in exchange for a similar number of Monro's principal prisoners at Newry, among whom were Hugh Magennis, Lady Magennis and Sara Lady Iveagh. The latter was a daughter of the Earl of Tyrone, and, in her younger days, had been celebrated for her beauty. 1 She was captured by Monro's men in the Narrow Water Castle, which latterly had been her residence. 8 It is a curious fact that, though Mr. Nicholas Simpson was one of the party sent to Newry for exchange, Sir William Brownlow, who was the most important prisoner in Armagh, was not released with the others, but was sent off to Dungannon, where he remained a captive for six weeks longer. It can only be assumed that none of Monro's prisoners in Newry were reckoned of sufficient importance to be exchanged for him. After delivering his twenty prisoners to Monro and presumably receiving an equivalent in exchange, Hovedon returned to Armagh and was again despatched with another lot of from 90 to 100 prisoners destined for Dundalk. Toole McCann shared the charge of this detachment with Hovedon, and the two clearly held different views as to their responsibilities, for, while Hovedon brought 35 of the number safely through to Dundalk, Toole McCann drowned the remainder at Scarva bridge over the Bann. 3 There can be little doubt that it was the news of this incident which occasioned the executions at Newry on the following day. Alexander Hovedon of Ballinbeatagh and his mother Catherine Hovedon had both proved consistent friends of the British from the first day of the rising. The Hovedons were of English descent. Alexander's grandfather, Henry Hovedon, was an Englishman who was attached by the Government to the service of Hugh, Earl of Tyrone, with the idea of familiarising The O'Neil with English ways. The result, however, had been far otherwise, for Hovedon had adopted Irish ways and the Roman Catholic religion, and had accompanied Tyrone when he fled the country in 1607. His son Robert married Catherine 1 See Sir Thomas Bodley's visit to Castlewellan, Ulster Journal of Archaeology. Gilbert's Contemp. Hist., Appendix. 8 Dep. of Margaret Bromley. 17 240 THE LANDING OF MONRO [CHAP, xvn O'Neil, the widow of Tirlough and the mother of Sir Phelim. This lady was a daughter of Tirlough McHenry of the Fews, and was therefore sister to Henry O'Neil of Glasdromin, a man who was almost as well disposed towards the English as his sister. Catherine Hovedon was wont to declare that the only injury she had ever done the British was in bringing Sir Phelim into the world. To make amends for this one error, she did all she could to save the colonists from the murderous clutches of her son. She was said to have kept twenty -four refugees in her house for thirty-seven consecutive weeks. Alexander Hovedon, who at the date of the rising was a young man of twenty-two though a most bigoted and fanatical Roman Catholic was no less favourably inclined towards the British than was his mother. He was finally killed in 1644 during a skirmish in Minterburn. 1 We know of no detachments that left the town of Armagh beyond the two above mentioned, but many were sent off at the same time from the surrounding districts, all of which came to an untimely end. There had been a number of prisoners since the beginning of the rising in and around Dungannon. Of these, 300 were now sent off in charge of Manus O'Cahan for Coleraine. Before they had gone twelve miles on their way they were all killed, Mr. Beveridge the minister of Killyman being among the victims. 8 It is probable that this was the incident to which Captain Stratford referred in his deposition, when he said that 300 were drowned in one day in a mill-pond in Killyman. Captain Perkins, who was a prisoner in Charlemont all through the rising, confirmed this story, for he deposed that forty-eight families in Killyman, who had previously been living under Sir Phelim's protection, were all killed at the time of the Armagh massacre. As soon as the 300 above mentioned had been disposed of, another batch of sixty from Loughgall were sent across the Blackwater, and distributed by twos and threes among the Irish houses in the neighbourhood of the Brantry Wood in Creevelough. Fifty-nine out of the sixty, including Mr. Chadwell and his wife, were murdered during the same night. The only one who escaped was a musician named Thomas 1 Friar O'Mellan. 2 Dep. of Michael Harrison. See also Judge Donellan's address. 1642] THE ARMAGH MASSACRE 241 Naul, who was apparently spared on account of his accom- plishments. The deposition of Michael Harrison leaves no doubt as to the truth of this story. He was himself living in Killyman at the time, and he states that, on the morning following the arrival of the Loughgall British, he made many inquiries for them from among the people around, but could find none of them, and was told by those whom he interrogated that they had all been killed the night before. 1 When Alexander Hovedon returned from convoying his thirty-five prisoners to Dundalk he found the town of Armagh reduced to ashes, and all the British who had remained behind butchered. We are told that " when he beheld the ruins of Armagh, he wept bitterly, saying who will ever trust the Irish again, who have neither kept their promise to God nor protection to men ? So great was his indignation that he swore he would never again draw his sword in Sir Phelim's quarrel, and . . . breathed curses against the British if, after that, they ever spared Irish man, woman or child." 2 There must have been something peculiarly heartrending about the spectacle of Armagh's ashes, for Mr. Nicholas Simpson, who returned with Montgomery's force three weeks after he had been sent away to Newry for exchange, was little less affected by the sight than Hovedon had been. " There was not," he said in his evidence, " a roof on church or house to cover them. All were burnt, and, looking into some houses, they found divers dead bodies burnt in the chimneys. And the stones in the streets were all bloody and like the floor of a butcher's slaughter-house, since the day of the murder of the inhabitants, which was three weeks before." 3 The burning of Armagh town and the massacre of the British remaining in it took place on May 6, under the special supervision of Neil Modder O'Neil, Governor of Castle Caulfield, Art McHugh O'Neil and Patrick Donelly of Knockearney. This man must not be confused with Patrick Modder Donelly, an honourable man, who reso- lutely refused to have anything to do with the butchery in Armagh, on the grounds that all those sheltering there 1 Dep. of Michael Harrison. 2 Records of High Court of Justice, Dublin. 3 Examination of Mr. Nicholas Simpson. 242 THE LANDING OF MONRO [CHAP, xvii were under Sir Phelim's protection. 1 His namesake, Patrick Donelly of Knockearney, was troubled with no such scruples, and, we are told, commenced his bloody work by murdering a surgeon named William Wollard, who, a week earlier, had dressed, washed and otherwise attended to a wound in Donelly's arm. 2 It is not easy to arrive with any degree of accuracy at the numbers who perished in Armagh itself. Captain Perkins, in his deposition, stated that 500 had been killed in the town itself. As he was a prisoner in Charlemont at the time, he can only have obtained this figure from the Irish themselves, who probably exaggerated the number killed. Judge Donellan said that 580 had been killed in and around Armagh on this occasion ; but this statement has little value on account of the vagueness of the boundaries denned. Mr. Nicholas Simpson, who, from his long residence in Armagh as a prisoner, must have had an accurate knowledge of the number of British in the town, puts the number of victims at 300, and this figure is probably the most reliable. Only the names of a few of the victims have come down to us, and those are mainly furnished by Edward Saltinghall, Mrs. Beare and Mrs. Charity Chapel, who give us the names of those among their personal friends who were killed. These names include Mr. Starkey, a very old Presbyterian minister and his two daughters, who were all three driven out,' absolutely naked, to a bog-hole, where they were thrust under the water with pikes. Mr. Starkey could not walk unaided, and had to be supported by a daughter on each side. Mr. John Bartlett, another Presbyterian minister, was also killed. Mr. Griffin, the curate, was saved by Sir Phelim, but his wife and three children were killed. James Chapel, two of Mrs. Beare's children, William Wollard, Thomas Whitaker, Thomas Glover, Thomas Collier (a hatter), Christian Symonds (a shoe- maker), William Galvin and his sister-in-law and two nieces, Thomas Sadler, John Keighley, Peter Keighley, Samuel Birch, Thomas Foster, James Berrall, Robert Berrall, Patrick Irvine, James Rhodes, William Marriot and his son, Robert Spring and Thomas Woodward were among the killed. 5 Mr. Griffin, after having been saved in 1 Dep. of Edward Saltinghall. 2 Ibid. 8 Dep. of Edward Saltinghall, Mrs. Beare, Mrs. Chapel and John Henderson. 1642] WHOLESALE MASSACRES OF BRITISH 243 Armagh itself by Sir Phelim, was taken by Tirlough Grome O'Quin with sixty others to the Blackwater church, where all were first cruelly tortured and then burnt alive in the church. Mrs. Price accuses Manus O'Cahan of this horrible deed, but it is clear from the other depositions that it was the work of Tirlough Grome O'Quin. Manus O'Cahan was at the time far too busily engaged murdering the unhappy British in the Killyman district of Tyrone. Tirlough Grome O'Quin, who was one of the bloodiest members of a very bloody sept, was particularly prominent in the May massacres, and is said to have completely exterminated the British in the Fews, with the exception of seven families who were saved by Henry O'Neil, who sheltered them in his house at Glasdromin till he found a fitting opportunity of sending them to Colonel Sinclair at Newry. Henry O'Neil also saved the lives of Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Edward Trevor, who fled for protection to his house from the simultaneous massacre which was being carried out in Co. Monaghan. For these acts of mercy Henry O'Neil was very much abused by his two sons and by Sir Phelim, who, in order to mark his displeasure (and at the same time benefit himself financially), carried off all the horses and cattle belonging to Glas- dromin. 1 The appalling horrors of the first week in May in Co. Armagh, and in the southern portion of Tyrone, can only be dimly pictured. The exterminatory work, however, was clearly very thorough. Tirlough McBrian O'Neil, a cousin of Sir Phelim, came to Kinard during the burning of Armagh and there murdered Mr. James Maxwell and his wife Grizel (under very horrible circumstances),* Mr. Atkins and two of his sons, and Mr. Henry Cowell. All these were people of good position. Tirlough McBrian then scoured the neighbouring parish of Tynan, where he managed to collect 153 British, all of whom he drowned at Corbridge ; three men only appear to have been spared. These were Quinton Glastonbury, Thomas Dykes and John Person, who were sheltered by an Irishman named Daniel Bawn and his wife, who afterwards sent them to Kinard, where they formed part of the miserable crowd of unrecognisable human beings who were liberated by Lord Conway some six weeks later. Little is known of 1 Dep. of Dr. Robert Maxwell. See p. 175. j * 244 THE LANDING OF MONRO [CHAP, xvn Daniel Bawn and his wife except that, throughout the rising, they played a friendly part towards the British, and were instrumental in saving many lives. William Skelton, who was servant to Sir Phelim and a prisoner at large at Kinard, in his deposition attributes the massacre of the Tynan people to Tirlough Oge, Sir Phelim's brother. Here, however, he is clearly in error, for Michael Harrison, whose opportunities for acquiring exact information were infinitely greater than Skelton's, states positively that it was the work of Tirlough McBrian. Both agree as to the number killed. It is probable that the drownings at Corbridge entirely denuded the parish of Tynan of British. Dr. Robert MaxweU, who w r as its rector, estimated that over 600 were massacred in the parish during the rising. Another far larger parish where the extermination seems to have been very complete was Kilmore. This parish had already suffered very severely on several occasions. During the May massacres its minister, Mr. Robinson, and sixty others were drowned in the Blackwater. This probably completed the work of extermination. Margaret Fillis, who was a resident in the parish, which was eight miles square and contained 200 British families, reckoned that not more than twenty in all escaped ; " but all the rest, being a great multitude, were all murdered and put to death, some by burning, some by drowning, some by hanging, some by famishing or starving, some by the sword, torture, or other cruel deaths." l Around Charlemont there was also complete exter- mination. Shane O'Neil, the Governor, who had kept a number of Scotchmen and Scotchwomen to plough and generally work for him all through the winter, killed them all during the first week in May. 2 The early May massacres marked the close of the horrid series of atrocities which must always be associated w r ith the Irish rising of 1641. They ceased at the end of the first week in May, because with the exception of the few who were being sheltered in the houses of the friendly Irish all the British colonists remaining in the districts to which the relief forces had not yet penetrated had been exterminated. The rest had safely reached British protection. Henceforward the struggle for supremacy 1 Dep. of Margaret Fillis. * Dep. of Wm. Skelton. 1642] LEGITIMATE WARFARE 245 between the native Irish and the British colonists was to be confined to the field of legitimate warfare, but of a ruthless and sanguinary warfare in which no quarter was given on either side, except to persons of high rank and in cases where garrisons of fortresses surrendered upon promise of life. CHAPTER XVIII THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS CONSIDERED THE number of British colonists who perished in the seven months during which the massacres continued has always been a controversial point and must always remain a controversial point. The absurdly exaggerated figures put forward by Temple and Borlase were figures furnished by the Irish themselves, while they yet laboured under the belief that they could wipe out the disgrace of their defeats in the open field by multiplying the number of those they had themselves killed. It was only when they had made the discovery that massacre does not rank as a feat of arms that they began to accuse those who had quoted their own figures of gross exaggeration. In their exultation they had boasted of 150,000 victims. In a book entitled Disputatio Apologetica, published in 1645, a Cork priest named O'Mahoney claimed that the Irish had killed 150,000 heretics in four years, and expressed the wish that the number had been greater. Dr. Bernard, Dean of Ardagh, wrote at the time that 154,000 had been killed in Ulster alone, " by the enemy's own confession and gloriation." * The absurdity of these figures is at once made clear when we remember that they were pro- bably not far short of the total number of British in Ireland at the time. Sir William Petty, who was considered the greatest statistician of the day, estimated that 37,000 of the British had perished by one means or another, and Carte, who wrote his Life of Ormonde in 1735, accepted Petty's estimate as being reasonable. Petty based his figures on an estimate of the British population in Ireland before and after the rising, a method of reckoning which is perhaps no more speculative than another. It is difficult, however, to extract a justification for any such 1 Clogy's Life of Bedell, p. 191. 246 1642] ESTIMATES OF NUMBERS MASSACRED 247 figure, as far as Ulster is concerned, from the depositions of survivors and other contemporary records. These pages lay no claim to any close scrutiny of affairs outside of Ulster, but it is an established fact that with the possible exception of Longford, Leitrim and Sligo, and such distant spots as Shrule, Cashel and Silvermines the massacres were not of a wholesale character outside the limits of Ulster, for the very good reason that the British were not to be found there in sufficient numbers. If 37,000 were killed in all, Ulster's proportion, on such a computation, cannot have been less than 24,000. In the light of the evidence available this figure would still appear excessive. On the other hand, it is very certain that the sworn depositions are very far from furnishing a complete record of outrages committed. Many small outlying settlements were so completely obliterated as to leave no witness to tell the story. The Plantations of the London Companies in Co. Londonderry undoubtedly suffered heavily, especially in the southern part of the county. The story of the re- volting cruelty used in the killing of Archie Craig, and others with him, 1 shows that the murders committed in Co. Londonderry were equal in brutality, even if not in extent, to any of which we have knowledge. Many from this county were undoubtedly killed before they could get to Coleraine, and the witnesses of such murders may them- selves have succumbed to the mortality in Coleraine. The massacre period in this district must, however, always remain more or less a sealed book, for there are few depositions from Co. Londonderry. Donegal suffered but little, thanks to the energetic action of the Lagan Force, but there were some very brutal murders of British by the McSweeneys in the Dogh dis- trict, before Sir William Stewart had time to reach that part of the county. In north-west Armagh and south-east Tyrone there were, by Sir Phelim's own confession.* very few survivors among the colonists. The Irish leader claimed that he had not left man, woman or child of British blood alive in the Minterburn district, or in the Plantations of Sir John Hamilton, Lord Charlemont and Lord Mountnorris.* 1 See dep. of Nicholas Fulton and Janet Minnis. 8 Judge Donellan's address. 3 Dep. of Margaret Bromley, John Wisdom, George Ldtchfield, Philip Taylor, Henry Read and Thomas Green. 248 THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS [CHAP, xvin The evidence, both from the Irish side and the British side, points to a fairly complete extermination in this part of the country, at any rate of the women and children. Many of the Tyrone men concentrated at the first alarm on Newtownstewart. Some took their women and children with them, but a number of these were afterwards sent back, when it was found, at the end of the first fort- night, that the Irish in most districts were inflicting no personal injury on the British. Most of these went back to their deaths. The savage mood of Barnet Lindsay and his forty men, which resulted in the Templepatrick massacre, arose from a conviction that all their families in the Dun- gannon district had been massacred while they were away. 1 Captain Anthony Stratford, who had every opportunity of learning the truth, deposed that 1,200 were killed in the parish of Killyman alone. The "Manor" of Clonfeacle, as it is called in the Down Survey, appears to have fared no better, and Tullahogue, which was Barnet Lindsay's home, had evidently no trace left in it of British women or children. In short, it appears fairly clear that all the British in south and east Tyrone who failed to reach the shelter of Augher, Aghentain or Newtownstewart, were exterminated, except in cases where they found shelter in the houses of friendly Irish. Of these Daniel O'Hagan stands out, in this part of the country, as the most con- spicuous. This good man succeeded in saving numbers of the colonists from the cruelty of his own sept, in con- sideration of which he was afterwards not only exempted from transportation to Connaught under the Cromwellian settlement, but was, in addition, granted some of the lands of Art Oge O'Neil in Antrim. There were doubtless many others, more obscure but none the less friendly, who played the good Samaritan to the British, but whose names have not come down to us. In the case of the three southern counties of Ulster, we have no particulars of any massacres in early May, but we have certain prima facie evidence that such massacres did take place at any rate in Co. Monaghan in the hurried flight of Mr. Aldridge to Enniskillen, and of Mr. Trevor and Mr. FitzGerald to Glasdromin. The extermination of the British, however, in this county, as in many of the other counties affected, was technical rather than real. 1 Warr of Ireland* 1642] BRITISH SURVIVORS IN MONAGHAN 249 Great numbers were undoubtedly massacred, but many others found safety in the houses of the friendly Irish of whom some were to be found in most districts. Mr. Robert Branthwaite gives the names of nine of such friendly Irish in the neighbourhood of Carrickmacross alone. Whether in the houses of these, or of others similarly disposed, it is certain that a number of the Co. Monaghan British did escape the May massacres, for Lord Conway relates that, when he took Kinard some six weeks later, he not only rescued 200 prisoners from that place, but many others in addition from Co. Monaghan. The total number of survi- vors, however, cannot have been large, for, seventeen years later and after the Cromwellian Settlement, a census of Co. Monaghan returned only 434 British as against 3,649 Irish. In Fermanagh there were, by May, few opportunities left for massacre, the majority of the British being either in safety or already killed. The author of the Aphorismical Discovery states with pride that, early in the year, Rory Maguire had " cleared the county of Fermanagh of the enemy." Some few, however, evidently still remained, for we know that one batch of twenty-one probably refugees among the friendly Irish were sent off at the time of the May massacres under escort towards Ballyshannon. After going a short distance the escort melted away, and another party of Irish fell on the convoy and annihilated it. 1 Of the Monaghan prisoners found by Lord Conway we know nothing beyond the fact that they were rescued, presumably from the houses of the Irish where they were sheltering. 8 It appears to have been an unwritten law among the Irish that none of the British should be touched while in the houses of natives who were not consenting parties to their murder. Thus we have seen Henry O'Neil of Glasdromin, Neil McCann, Brian Maguire, Mrs. Doyne, Mrs. Hovedon and Daniel Bawn roundly abused by their superiors for sheltering the British, but in no case was any attempt made to drag those who were so sheltered from their sanctuary. The number of victims who perished in the two eastern counties is by no means easy to arrive at. In the case of Co. Down we have very few detailed particulars, and certainly none of massacres on a large scale. Walter 1 Dep. of Anne Blennerhasset. 2 We know that Neil McCann preserved sixty alive in Mr. Berkeley's house at Glasslough. 250 THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS [CHAP, xvin Harris, in his Hibernica, states that the number of barbarities practised on the British in the county of Down alone amounted to 3,000, but he gives no particulars, nor does he define the word " barbarity." The only cases as to which we have detailed information are the Lough Kernan tragedy, the butchery of Mr. Tutch and others at Newcastle, arid several cases of barbarous atrocities practised on individuals or families, as for instance the shocking cruelties practised upon the family of Mr. Murray, minister of Killeleagh. 1 Colonel Henry O'Neil, in his "Relation," makes mention of a victory which Phelim McToole O'Neil and McCartan achieved over the Scots of Co. Down at Deirendreiat in the spring of 1642, in the course of which three hundred of the latter were killed. 8 Colonel O'NeiPs "Relation," though written in a frankly partisan spirit, bears on the whole the stamp of reliability. Doubts as to the actuality of this fight at Deirendreiat are, however, raised by the fact that no other record, either English or Irish, makes any mention of such a fight. Colonel O'Neil, who does not claim to have been present on the occasion, and whose evidence is therefore purely hearsay, refers to it very cursorily and gives no details, not even to the extent of mentioning the name of the British commander. In the case of the three authenticated Irish victories in Ulster, viz. at Benburb, Garvagh and Bun- dooragh, such particulars are given in full, together with the order of battle, the dispositions of the rival forces and other details of interest, such as the names of the principal combatants killed or taken prisoners. With regard to the alleged fight at Deirendreiat, however, Colonel O'Neil merely states that three hundred Scots were killed by Phelim McToole and McCartan. This may have been a case of mere massacre, but the singular omission of details, coupled with the complete silence on the subject of all other narrations of the day, suggests very strongly that Colonel O'Neil is in error as to his dates, and that he has in his mind an expedition undertaken by Phelim McToole and Rory Maguire, after the battle of Benburb, to which all contemporary historians except Colonel O'Neil make some reference. Of this expedition the author of the Aphorismical Discovery says that Phelim McToole and Rory Maguire were sent to Co. Down which Monro had eva- 1 See Hamilton MSS., p. 35. "Relation" of Col. Henry O'Neil. 1642] EXTENT OF CO. DOWN MASSACRES 251 cuated after his defeat at Benburb " where no opposition was given them ; they took several forts and holds, burned, demolished and sacked them and killed as many of the enemy as came in their way." 1 The omission by Colonel O'Neil of any mention of this incident, of which three other historians give details,* and his introduction of a very similar incident in 1642 which no other historian mentions leaves little room for doubt that he confused the dates and that the two incidents are the same. Matters, however, which took place after the battle of Benburb do not come within the category of massacres, for at that time neither side gave any quarter except to persons of importance. In connection with the question of alleged massacres in Co. Down, it is interesting to note that Dr. Robert Maxwell, while a prisoner with the Irish, was told by them that, in the earlier stages of the rising, Colonel Brian O'Neil had killed 300 British at Killeleagh and 1,000 more in other parts of the county. 3 The evidence as to these figures is only hearsay evidence, and the figures themselves are in any case probably exaggerated ; but the fact that such rumours were afloat encourages the belief that extensive massacres did take place in Co. Down. In Co. Antrim there was unquestionably an indiscrimi- nate massacre of any British who failed to reach sanctuary. Luckily this county had warning, and had consequently time to arm and give shelter in its walled strongholds to great numbers of scattered women and children, many of whom were by degrees able to sail to England from Carrick- fergus. It is beyond question, however, that very many failed to reach these places. In the Rawdon Papers there is an account of the state of the county during the rebellion, written by a contemporary, which is of the highest interest as it gives us a very clear vision of a situation which would otherwise have to be seen through a partial fog. " In Antrim," it says, " the Irish rebels made slaughter of all men, women and children that they could lay hands on, within the county of Antrim, which were Protestants, burning their houses and corn. Such as escaped their fury took sanctuary in Carrickfergus, Belfast, Lisnagarvey [Lisburn], Antrim and Larne, and the two houses of Temple- 1 Aphorismical Discovery, vol. i. p. 117. * Carte, Mulhollan and author of Aph. Disc. 3 Dep. of Dr. Robert Maxwell, 252 THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS [CHAP, xvin patrick and Edenduffcarrick, all the said towns and houses being near the one to the other. The rebels had command of all the rest of the county and within musket-shot of the towns and to the very walls of the two houses, until the middle of June 1642, so as, for nearly the first eight months of the rebellion, no Protestant had any quarter granted in that part of the county, but only in those towns and two houses. About the middle of June 1642, the British army [Monro's] marching forth dispersed the rebels, made several forts of earth and left men in them, which served for a great check to the rebels, formerly exercising all absolutism of dominion in that county. Unless they stole out ob- scurely and sheltered themselves in woods and fastnesses, that county was freed in great measure from them, which is the true state of that county." l Although it is a matter of certainty that the details of massacres all over Ulster, which have come down to us, represent but a very small fraction of those actually perpetrated, the probability still remains that a greater number of the British colonists perished from exposure and hunger than by violent deaths. The sufferings of those who were stripped and turned adrift at the beginning of the rising delicate women, small children and old men is beyond the reach of imagination. It is almost in- conceivable that any should have survived. It must be remembered that the avowed object of the Irish, in strip- ping and turning out these poor people, was that cold and hunger should play the part of executioners. This was a surface concession to the letter of the Multifarnham edict. As to the efficacy of such methods in an abnormally cold season, with snow and frost of nightly occurrence and with food unprocurable, there can be no question. The sur- vivors would be very few, and those only of the strongest. Even when taken into the houses of friendly Irish, the refugees were still subject to great privations, and were in many cases made to work for their lives like slaves. Lord Conway reported that the Kinard prisoners, when released, looked more like ghosts than human beings. Sir John Temple tells us that many of the survivors, who gave evidence, were all but demented with their sufferings ; many were mutilated in various ways and some succumbed to their sufferings shortly after they had given their evi- 1 Berwick's Rawdon Papera t no. xrsvi. 1642] SUFFERINGS OF THE BRITISH PRISONERS 253 dence. Some idea of the terrible conditions of life which were forced on those who were prisoners with the Irish can be gathered from Lady Blayney's written account of the experience of herself and her children. Lady Blayney was the sister of Lord Moore of Mellifont, and, as a prisoner of high rank, was accorded privileges which were denied to those of inferior status ; for in- stance, she was lodged in Monaghan Castle, while the other prisoners in Monaghan were confined in a cell so small that the prisoners had to lie one on the top of another. 1 Yet, in spite of the fact that she was a privileged prisoner of high rank, she and her children, in being transferred from one part of the county to another, were given no food nor drink, but had to live on water from puddles and any refuse which they could find. She gives a pathetic account of the joy of her children at the discovery of an old sheep- skin, off which they made a meal.* Even more pitiable is the account given by Elizabeth Price, who was for some time one of the Kinard prisoners. " And this deponent for her own part was thrice hanged up to confess to money, and afterwards let down, and she had the soles of her feet fried at the fire, and was often scourged and whipped. And she and most of the rest of the prisoners were so pined and hunger-starved that some of them died, and lay a week unburied. And this deponent and others that survived were forced to eat grass and weeds, and when they asked for leave to go out and gather their sustenance it was denied, so that hunger forced them to burst open the window in their prison chamber, and to scrape and rake the weeds, moss and anything that they could possibly take from the walls. And in that, or the like and worse distress, they continued, and were tossed and haled from place to place in the most miserable manner for fourteen or fifteen weeks together, their allowance of viands being only a quart of meal among six for three days and not half water enough. Inasmuch as at last they had, she is verily persuaded, been enforced to have eaten of them that died, had not the great God Almighty put some end to their great calamitous miseries by the landing of Owen Roe O'Neil out of Spain. Who, being arrived there and 1 See dep. of the Rev. Henry Steele. Lady Blayney's written statement, Shirley's History of Monaghan. 254 THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS [CHAP, xvm informed of their miserable torments and sufferings, and what multitudes of people the said Sir Phelim and his confederates had murdered and put to death by the sword, hanging, drowning, famishing, burning and other cruel and barbarous dealings, he did not only enlarge and set at liberty this deponent and the other prisoners that survived and were there with her, but gave all who asked a convoy to Dundalk. And upon sight of this deponent's and the other prisoners' miserable and starved condition he, in this deponent's hearing, exceedingly reproved the said Sir Phelim O'Neil and his other partakers for their odious and merciless cruelties, saying that they ought to be made to suffer and endure the like torments and deaths they had forced and put upon the Protestants. And, after some bitter words had passed concerning the same between Owen Roe and Sir Phelim, he, the said Owen Roe, in part of revenge and detestation of their odious actions, burned some of the rebels' houses at Kinard, and said he would join-with the English army to burn the rest." That Elizabeth Price does not describe any isolated case of hardship and misery we may be sure. The con- dition of the Kinard prisoners was probably typical rather than exceptional. Great numbers must inevitably have perished when subjected to ordeals such as those described, but it is hopeless to make any attempt to reduce such numbers to definite figures. In the cases of Dublin and Coleraine there are certain records of the mortality among the refugees who succeeded in reaching these places, but there are none of the thousands who never reached sanctuary, but died miserable deaths in the woods and mountains, or in crowded prison-cells. Much has been said of the British reprisals which followed on the massacres. Irish writers have dwelt pathetically on these, while entirely ignoring the cruel provocation which occasioned them. Even certain English historians, in a spirit of excessive altruism, have glossed over the Irish massacres, and given undue prominence to the reprisals which these massacres called forth. The British reprisals were unquestionably savage and heartless, but it cannot be claimed that they were more savage and heartless than was to be expected by those whose arms were red to the elbow with innocent blood. It was not merely the num- bers of the colonists killed which provoked the retaliatory 1642] CRUELTY OF IRISH WOMEN AND BOYS 255 vengeance of the British. It was the horrible brutality which too often accompanied the killing. The victims had been killed with unnecessary, and, in many cases, with revolting cruelty. They were in almost every case the inoffensive and unoffending neighbours of those who killed them. In many cases they were their active bene- factors. The avengers, as often as not, were the fathers, the brothers, and, in some cases, the sons of those who had been brutally tortured for no offence except that they were of British blood. When we read of eighteen Scottish infants being impaled alive on tenterhooks, a deed which was sworn to before Henry Jones, D.D., and Henry Brereton on March 9, 1643, by Captain Anthony Stratford of Charlemont, we cannot wonder that the fathers of these infants, when their hour of victory came, had but little disposition towards mercy. Nor can we wonder that the Irish women and children were not spared. Mrs. Elizabeth Price, whose five small children were all murdered, deposed that " the Irish women were fiercer and more cruel than the men." Elizabeth Croker swore that it was in most cases the Irish women who urged on the men to their worst deeds. Jane Hamskin, we know, burned twenty-four alive in a cottage. The wife of Brian Kelly of Loughgall killed forty-five with her own hands. The children apishly copied their seniors' barbarities. They made themselves skeans of sharpened wood, with which they would torture and hack the naked bodies of the British children. 1 John Beg and Brian O'Hara, two Co. Tyrone boys, were heard to boast that they had killed one hundred and forty-five women and children between them.* Another Dungannon boy named Patrick McCroo killed thirty-one in a single morning. Anne Reeves's son Stephen, aged six, was set upon by six Irish boys, all under eight years of age, who first put out his eyes and then, with sticks and stones, battered out his brains. 3 Yet another boy of under fourteen killed, with a skean, fifteen men in succession whose feet were in the stocks. 4 A boy was heard to boast that his arm was so wearied with hacking and stabbing that he could hardly lift it. 5 Coote's remark that " nits become lice," 1 Examination of Mr. Nicholas Simpson. 3 Dep. of Anne Read. 2 Dep. of Captain Stratford. * Dep. of Anne Kennard. 6 Dep. of Eleanor Fullerton, widow of the minister of Loughgall. 18 256 THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS [CHAP, xvin so often quoted as proof of his callous brutality to some Irish children in Wexford, was provoked by the devilish practices of the " nits " themselves. In an Account of the Bloody Massacre in Ireland 1 we are told that it was the practice of the Irish to put out the eyes and cut off the hands of their prisoners, and so to turn them out naked into the fields. This may be untrue, for the statement is not supported by any reference, but it is unquestionable that practices equally cruel were freely indulged in, especially at the time when attempts were being made to get rid of the British without infring- ing the letter of the Multifarnham edict as to not killing outright. When the flood-gates of human vengeance are once opened by unprovoked atrocities such as these, the onus of responsibility for all the horrors that ensue must rest on the shoulders of those who were the original aggressors, nor by any trick of crooked reasoning can it be shifted from those shoulders. The Irish were the first to dip their hands in innocent blood, and by so doing forfeited for ever their rights of complaint against the inevitable retribution. That retribution was undoubtedly brutal and relentless, and was responsible for many acts that can only be regarded by modern eyes with horror. We get far fewer details of the retaliatory massacres by the British than we do of the original massacres by the Irish. It is only occasionally that by chance we are allowed a glimpse of these dreadful tragedies. In the Despatch of an Unknown Officer we read that in 1642 a party sent out from Newry into the Mourne Mountains killed 500 Irish, of whom 90 per cent, were women and children. 1 Another party sent out from Dundalk no doubt with like intent was less successful, for the men composing it got so scattered among the mountains that 400 of them failed to return. Sir William Cole again reported that he had killed 295 of the Irish in Co. Fermanagh mainly Rory Maguire's people in revenge for the massacres at Lisgool and Tully. 3 Such incidents are only arrived at obliquely through private correspon- dence, but we may be sure that they occurred in many parts of the country. The only respect in which they 1 Coll. of Tracts, British Museum, p. 4. z Pinkerton MSS. 3 "Vindication" of Sir William Cole. 1642] CROMWELL'S POLICY OF BANISHMENT 257 show up in a less revolting light than the previous massacres by the Irish is that they were directed against presumptive murderers instead of against friendly neighbours, and that as far as we know they were entirely free from anything in the shape of torture. The main idea was not to hurt, but to exterminate. For this gruesome expedient there was some justification in the experience of those who had tried the other alternative. For over thirty years the British colonists had tried the experiment of living among the native Irish as neighbours and friends. So friendly, in fact, had been the relations between the two races that the British ceased to arm themselves, or to take any precautions for the defence of their houses and families. The Irish had taken advantage of this confiding attitude to fall suddenly upon their neighbours and attempt their extermination. The lesson which seemed to be thus taught was that the neighbourly inter- course of the two races was not practicable, and that the extermination of one or the other was therefore a necessity. There can be no doubt that this was the idea which governed the policy of the British up to the time of Oliver Cromwell's landing in Ireland. Cromwell agreed that after the experience of 1641 it was im- possible for the two races to live intermingled, but he modified the policy of extermination into a policy of banishment. The natives were to go to Connaught, and leave Ulster free for the colonists. This policy, however, proved unexpectedly difficult of accomplishment, and on the restoration of Charles II its effect was to a great extent neutralised by the tendency of the moment towards a reversal of every act or edict which had originated with Cromwell.' PART III THE CIVIL WARS IN ULSTER 259 CHAPTER I THE TURN OF THE TIDE MONRO, after a week spent at Newry, and after burning all the houses in the town an apparently foolish pro- ceeding retired to Carrickfergus on May 7, leaving Colonel Sinclair and 300 men in the Castle. Sir Charles Poyntz was placed in charge of Carlingford. The reasons put forward by Monro for his otherwise unaccountable retirement were that he had nothing with which to feed his army. 1 All the royalist chroniclers, to whom Robert Monro's name is anathema, criticise him very severely for his premature retirement after having accomplished nothing beyond the capture of Newry. It must, however, in common fairness be pointed out that Lord Conway, who accompanied the expedition both coming and going, was in supreme command by virtue of his position as Marshal of Ireland, and that the responsibility for the early return of the column, as well as for the defective commissariat which made it necessary, must rest on his shoulders and on his alone. Sir James Turner, who was a member of the force, makes this very clear in his Memoirs. Conway, however, was a Royalist and therefore immune from criticism by Clarendon, Carte or Nalson. The real trouble, of course, was that the force was several times larger than was necessary, and the feeding of it conse- quently became impossible. For this initial mistake, again, the blame must rest with the local leaders, who knew the country and its requirements far better than a stranger could. Although scarcity of food may have been the cause of Monro's retirement to Carrickfergus, it cannot be said with truth that there were no supplies within reach, for Monro to Leslie, May 15, 1642. 261 262 THE TURN OF THE TIDE [CHAP, i we learn that, during the return, great quantities of cattle were captured and driven back to Carrickfergus. After a short stay in that town, and after dispensing with the further services of the local troops, Monro passed on north into Antrim. It is the fashion to characterise Monro's tour of Antrim as a criminal waste of time and opportunity, but, as a matter of fact, that county was urgently in need of relief, as is made very clear by the extract from the Rawdon Papers referred to in the pre- ceding chapter. Up to June 1642 the entire country, with the exception of a few walled strongholds, had been in the hands of the Irish, who, upon Monro's advance, were compelled to withdraw across the Bann, and rid the county of their unwelcome presence. Monro started his aggressive operations by burning Glenarm, and followed that up by burning the Dowager Lady Antrim's house at Ballycastle. From the home of the mother at Ballycastle, he passed on to the far more formidable stronghold of the son at Dunluce. This famous Castle had been held throughout the rebellion by Captain Digby, partly, it would seem, on behalf of Antrim and partly for the general protection of the British residents in the neighbourhood. Antrim himself had been in Dublin at the outbreak of the rising, and had in fact stayed in that city till April, when having definitely abandoned his original idea of siding with the Irish he set out to look after his own in the north. On the journey he stayed a night in Armagh, but declined the hospitality of his sister Alice l (the wife of Tirlough Oge, the Governor), preferring, probably for political reasons, to sleep at the Friary. Next day he made a long ride to Moneymore, where he slept the night at Cormac O'Hagan's house, and where he had a long interview with Sir Phelim. 2 After leaving Moneymore he crossed the Bann and rode to the rebel camp south of Coleraine. On his arrival at the camp he found that Archibald Stewart, the Governor of the place since Rowley's death, had actually accepted terms of surrender, and was on the point of yielding the 1 Hill, in his McDonnells of Antrim, expresses doubts as to the identity of " my sister Alice " and suggests that she may have been the wife of a Mr. Crombie. This is clearly an error. Hill was evidently in ignorance of the fact that Tirlough Oge, the Governor of Armagh, was married to Antrim's sister, or rather his half-sister. * Information of the Earl of Antrim. See also Friar O'Mellan. 1642] THE EARL OF ANTRIM 263 place to Alastair McCoUkittagh McDonnell. 1 By the exercise of the claims of clanship, or possibly by asserting his authority as chief of the McDonnells, Antrim was able to persuade his kinsman to forgo his advantage, and even to relax in some part the severity of the siege. 8 This important step accomplished, he went on to Dunluce, and, on April 28, took over command of that place from Captain Digby, making public proclamation at the same time that he intended thenceforward to hold it for the King. As a further practical illustration of the complete change in his political attitude, he sent the famished inmates of Coleraine a present of one hundred cattle and fifty loads of corn. Even in his reformed character, however, Antrim was a man whom it was not easy to trust, and Monro did not trust him. Even Strafford, who had been linked to him by the common bond of royalist sympathies, had never trusted him, and had in consequence vigorously opposed his offer, made in 1639, to raise and arm native regiments for service against the Scottish Covenanters, reminding the Council, as he did so, that Antrim's mother had been a daughter of Hugh O'Neil and his grandmother a sister of Shane O'Neil. 3 Monro's case against Antrim was that he had been nominally in alliance with the rebels ; that his mother was reputed to have been responsible for many murders of British, and that he himself was avowedly a Royalist and therefore a proclaimed enemy of the Parlia- ment whose servant he (Monro) was ; for the King and the Parliament were now openly at war. 4 In Ireland there was still nominal cohesion between the royalist British, and the parliamentary British, who though cordially disliking one another were of necessity united for the time being by the common menace of the Irish rising. Antrim, however, was not British, being half Highland, half Irish and wholly Roman Catholic, a combination which in Monro's opinion justified him in arresting the Earl in spite of Antrim's recent services to Coleraine. Carte's account of the affair is that Antrim hospitably entertained Monro at Dunluce Castle, and was then treacherously made prisoner by his guest ; and the 1 Aphorismical Discovery, p. 33. 8 Information of Earl of Antrim. s Strafford to Sir Henry Vane, June 4. 1639. * Carte, vol. i. p. 418. 264 THE TURN OF THE TIDE [CHAP, i Rev. George Hill, as in duty bound, supports this statement in his McDonnells of Antrim. We have, however, the clearest proof that this statement is incorrect, and that it was merely an attempt on the part of a royalist historian to throw discredit on a parliamentary General, for Carte himself, in a private letter to a " Member of the House of Commons " written May 12, 1714, contradicts his own statement and admits that Antrim delivered the Castle to Monro. 1 This, too, is Antrim's own version of the affair, for, in his account of his journey from Dublin to Dunluce, he mentions the plain fact that Monro arrested him, but makes no suggestion of any treachery. Mul- hollan's version is that Dunluce was surrendered as the result of a siege. Antrim's imprisonment, as events turned out, did not greatly incommode him, for, with a little friendly assist- ance from inside, he soon effected his escape from Carrick- fergus, and, after some adventures, reached Lord Moore's house at Mellifont.* Monro remained nearly two months at Dunluce doing nothing. He was, in point of fact, debarred from making any aggressive movement by the mutiny of his troops and the shortage of food, the former being directly oc- casioned by the latter. The county of Antrim, on which he had to rely for his supplies, was devastated during the summer of 1642 by a famine, which Monro's enemies suggested was in part brought about by his own action in shipping so many of the Antrim cattle to Scotland. Whatever the cause may have been, the fact remains that the north-eastern county of Ulster was scourged that summer by very severe famine and pestilence. Twenty- five hundred died in and around Carrickfergus in four months. Monro's army mutinied and refused to advance, and the Irish were, in many cases, forced into eating their own dead. 5 With Monro lying inactive at Dunluce, the care of British lives in north-west Ulster devolved on the Lagan Force. This indefatigable body of men had, since the beginning of the year, been acting as a screen protecting Newtownstewart, Raphoe, Derry and Inishowen from any attempt on the part of Sir Phelim to advance his forces 1 Somers's Tracts, vol. v. p. 662. * Warr of Ireland. 8 Hist. Coll., relative to the town of Belfast. 1642] THE LAGAN FORCE 265 in the direction of the north coast. The immense area which relied on the Lagan Force for protection called for an untiring energy on the part of the three regiments of which it was at that time formed. 1 During the last two months of 1641 the duties of the Force had been mainly confined to convoying troops of refugees from Ennis- killen and Ballyshannon to Derry, and to guarding Derry itself from any danger of attack by Sir Phelim. During the whole of this period the city, according to the "Relation" of Mr. Lawson, was in no condition to defend itself, " be- ing utterly destitute of arms." Early in 1642, however, the position became much improved. The Merchant Taylors', Vintners', Grocers', and Mercers' Companies sent the city fifteen guns, and the Lords Justices contri- buted thirty barrels of powder and some arms from Dublin. 2 About the same time that this welcome consignment of arms reached Derry the first real concentration of the Lagan Force was brought about in the manner already described. Sir Ralph Gore's regiment, after having been very hard pressed in central Donegal, was rescued by Sir Robert Stewart and brought safely to Raphoe at the beginning of April 1642. With Gore's regiment had come a mass of British refugees from the barony of Boylagh and Bannagh, and from the neighbouring barony of Tirhugh. This practically cleared Donegal of refugees, and, with their disappearance, there ceased to be the same need for a protective force operating in those parts. Gore's regiment was taken over by Audley Mervyn, and all three regiments were thenceforward concentrated south of Derry with a view to forming a protective barrier between Sir Phelim's forces and the multitude of British colonists who had sought sanctuary on the shores of the Foyle. The reconstitution of the force and the shifting of its respon- sibilities worked out satisfactorily in every way. The Lagan Force protected Inishowen and the Derry district and Derry, in return, supplied the Lagan Force with such necessaries of life as beef, butter, herrings and salmon from the Foyle fisheries, which had just opened their season. The extra drain on the resources of Derry was in consequence con- siderable, and the food situation in the city itself was becoming critical, when, at the beginning of May, two 1 The Lagan Force ultimately mustered five regiments, Reid. 266 THE TURN OF THE TIDE [CHAP, i British ships arrived with provisions and six barrels of powder. 1 In the meanwhile it had become evident to Sir Phelim that unless all his schemes in the north were to be per- manently paralysed the Lagan Force must be crushed and the investment of Derry essayed. He accordingly determined to stake all on a trial of strength, and, with this end in view, arrived at Strabane on May 17 at the head of 5,000 men. Orders were sent to Alastair McColl- kittagh McDonnell and to O'Cahan to abandon for the moment the siege of Coleraine and to join him, with all the strength they could raise, in the supreme effort which he had in contemplation. The two Stewarts were not unaware of the magnitude of Sir Phelim' s preparations, and in view of their great numerical inferiority they prevailed on Sir John Vaughan, the Governor of Derry, to send Captain Pitt's and Captain Lawson's companies to supplement a force which had already been seriously depleted by the necessity for providing garrisons for Donegal Castle, Roughan Castle, Newtownstewart and Raphoe. The decisive battle took place on June 16 at Glen- maquin near Raphoe, and resulted in the complete over- throw of Sir Phelim and his formidable army. Audley Mervyn, who was present on the occasion, speaks in the highest terms of praise of the conduct of the Lagan Force, mentioning Lieutenants Galbraith, Corlase and Cornet Cathcart as having particularly distinguished themselves. Sir Phelim's troops, on the other hand, from all accounts, did not show at their best. " Scarce did the Irish show their faces to the enemy than their heels," writes the author of the Aphorismical Discovery, who never misses an opportunity of saying disagreeable things about Sir Phelim. Mulhollan, however, practically corroborates the above, but adds a redeeming clause with regard to Alastair McCollkittagh, who undeterred by the general stampede attacked the British force almost single-handed, but was at once shot. Friar O'Mellan, who was either present on the occasion or in the immediate neighbourhood, endorses the version given by the other two writers, for he tells us that "the General (presumably Alastair Mc- Collkittagh) cried out to his men, but all hi vain, for they 1 Deny Corporation to Monro. 1642] BATTLE OF GLENMAQUIN 267 would not come back to the charge." Alastair's wound, though serious, did not prove fatal, and he was removed from the field of battle in a horse-litter. He subsequently served with much distinction under Montrose in Scotland, 1 and was finally killed at the battle of Shrubhill in Munster, under circumstances which strongly recalled the battle of Glenmaquin. Sir Phelim's defeat was absolute and irretrievable. Five hundred of his men were killed in the pursuit which followed on their flight, and the rest were hopelessly dis- couraged. Sir Phelim himself had little inclination, even if he had the power, to attempt further hostilities in the open. He left 200 picked men to garrison Strabane, and returned himself to Charlemont, where he shut himself up in the Castle and made preparations to resist the siege which he knew could not long be deferred. The Stewarts, however, had no idea of leaving Strabane in enemy hands, and, three days after the victory of Glenmaquin, they carried the place by assault, the garrison taking to its heels. They were, however, all overtaken and killed, with the exception of Hugh Devine, the commander, who was sent as a prisoner to Derry. 8 Strabane, after its capture, was left in the joint charge of Captain Wishaw and Sir William Hamilton of Done- managh, the last-named of whom had since the outbreak of the rising changed his religion and become a Protestant, on the grounds, as he put it, " that neither faith, civil conversation, sound loyalty or religion can be expected where such bloody, traitorous and inhuman dealings are." In addition to the Strabane garrison, 500 men (appa- rently Sir William Stewart's regiment) were left to guard the Raphoe district, while Sir Robert Stewart's and Mer- vyn's regiments crossed the Mourne into Co. London- derry to do what Monro ought to have been doing, viz. to clear that county of the force which had for so long been investing Coleraine. The Irish forces in Co. Londonderry had lost their commander in Alastair McCollkittagh, and, with his dis- appearance, the command had devolved on Manus O'Cahan, a man who was as far behind McCollkittagh as a soldier 1 John McDonnell's Ulster Civil Wars. Friar O'Mellan. 3 " Relation " of Audley Mervyn. 268 THE TURN OF THE TIDE [CHAP, i as he was ahead of him as a butcher of women and children. It cannot be doubted that the uninterrupted success of the Lagan Force in Co. Londonderry was due in some part to this change. Stewart opened proceedings by relieving Ballykelly, and shortly afterwards drove the enemy from Limavady, in which Captain Philips had now been shut up for ten weeks, after which he moved on to the relief of Coleraine. At Magilligan, Manus O'Cahan made an attempt to bar his way with a large force of O'Cahans, O'Hagans, O'Mullans and Antrim McDonnells. In the encounter which followed the Lagan Force was again victorious, and O'Cahan was forced to turn tail and take refuge with all his forces in the Sperrin Mountains. Into this difficult and dangerous country Stewart resolved to pursue his adversaries and to abandon for the moment the relief of Coleraine. The enterprise was a hazardous one, for Stewart had only two regiments with him, and the wild country around Dungiven lent itself in every way to defensive operations. O'Cahan had posted his force in a strong position on the northern slope of the hills, and, in order that the spirit of his men should not be inferior to the natural advantages of the ground, he made them swear upon the sacrament to fight to the last man. In the determined mood inspired by this rite, they charged so furiously down the hill upon their foe that the Lagan Force was at first driven back in some disorder. O'Cahan's advantage, however, was but momentary. Stewart quickly rallied his men, and, leading them once more to the attack, broke the Irish ranks and captured the position. Eight hundred, we are given to understand, were killed. O'Cahan himself was one of the first to take to his heels and shut himself up in Dungiven Castle. Stewart having first secured the enemy's cattle followed in pursuit, and, after a short siege, compelled the surrender of the place. Manus O'Cahan was taken prisoner and sent to Derry, where he was executed. Irish writers maintain that he surrendered upon promise of quarter, and that his execution was in violation of this pledge. They make the same assertion, however, in regard to every prominent Irishman who was captured during the ten years' war and executed after capture, in many cases where the circum- stances themselves are sufficient to prove the accusation false. In any event, with the death of Manus O'Cahan 1642] EXPLOITS OF THE LAGAN FORCE 269 the world was quit of a very cruel and cowardly ruffian. At the outset of the rising Sir John Vaughan, the Governor of Derry, had (very unwisely as it would seem) placed Manus O'Cahan in charge of Dungiven Castle. 1 We can only guess as to the protestations of loyalty which O'Cahan must have made before such an important trust could have been conferred upon him, but we know that he took the earliest opportunity of betraying the Castle into Sir Phelim's hands, and from that time on became the bloodiest of his butchers. There are few men with a blacker record than Manus O'Cahan. Driving the captured cattle before him, Stewart next moved down to the Bann, where he captured Castle Roe and after leaving a garrison there moved on to Coleraine, which was thus at length relieved after a six months' siege, during which those within had undergone some very terrible experiences. Stewart's mission in Co. Londonderry was now accomplished, and he lost no time in hurrying back with his gallant little force to his own ground on the west side of the Foyle, arriving just in time to complete the dis- comfiture of a body of 2,000 Irish, who were hard pressing Sir William Stewart at Raphoe. In the following year Colonel Audley Mervyn, in an address to the House of Commons, referred to the achieve- ments of the Lagan Force as having been of a very extra- ordinary character. His claim was universally admitted at the time and must be no less readily admitted after the lapse of nearly three centuries. Formed almost entirely from among the British farmers, labourers and artisans of Tyrone and east Donegal, and officered by the landed gentry of those parts, it held a record of unvarying success during nine long years of continuous fighting. For the greater part of that time it received no pay of any sort. 2 It had to contend with astonishing difficulties in the way of ammunition and food supplies, and in most of its encounters it was greatly outnumbered. At Glen- maquin, which, up to the date of the battle of Clones, was its most outstanding victory, it was certainly out- numbered by no less than four to one. It had the best part of three counties to defend, and yet, so faithfully 1 Dep. of Peter Carte. * See Mayor of Derry to Monro, April 27, 1642. 270 THE TURN OF THE TIDE [CHAP. I did it carry out its self-imposed task, that the districts over which it kept watch were practically immune from the red foot-print of massacre which was stamped on the rest of Ulster. Audley Mervyn's tribute was paid after eight months only of fighting, and although those eight months were unquestionably the most important as far as the saving of life was concerned, the subsequent eight years' service of the Lagan Force was little less remarkable as a record of ceaseless activity and of invari- able success in the field. CHAPTER II BRITISH RELIEF FORCES IN ARMAGH AND TYRONE THE brilliant successes of the Lagan Force in Co. London- derry had the effect of stimulating Monro into a sporadic display of activity. Immediately after the relief of Coleraine, having succeeded by some means in obtaining temporary supplies for his troops, he turned his back on Dunluce and marched south along the east shore of Lough Neagh, where he was joined by Lords Conway, Mont- gomery and Clandeboye. The combined forces then visited Armagh, where the traces of the recent terrible massacre were still visible, and, from Armagh, passed on to Kinard. Here Lord Conway, who had assumed command, had the satisfaction of burning Sir Phelim's fine freestone house, and of releasing 200 British prisoners, whom he described as resembling ghosts rather than human beings. 1 Lady Caulfield and her children were found in a stone house belonging to Mr. Charles Bolton near the Brantry wood, in a miserably emaciated condition, but otherwise uninjured. 2 Great efforts were made to find Lady Blayney and her children, and, to this end, mounted patrols were sent south into Co. Monaghan. As far as discovery of Lady Blayney was concerned, the search was unsuccessful, but it was not altogether barren of results, for many prisoners were discovered and brought back, together with a certain number of cattle. The capture of Kinard was quickly followed by that of Dungannon under rather remarkable circumstances. Ever since the burning of Armagh, Sir William Brownlow had been confined as a prisoner in Dungannon Castle. News of the presence of the British at Kinard reached him through some private source, and he resolved on a bold stroke for liberty. In conjunction with Lieutenant 1 A " Relation " from Lord Conway. 2 Dep. of Wm. Skelton. 19 271 272 BRITISH RELIEF FORCES [CHAP, n Martin, who was a fellow-prisoner, and with the connivance of three members of the garrison named McMahon, McCann and O'Quin, he managed to put himself in temporary possession of the Castle. Captain Codan, the Constable, was secured and bound, and one of the Irish was sent off to Kinard to inform Lord Conway of the position. On the following morning Conway himself rode over and formally took possession of the place. Captain Codan was hanged and Captain Theophilus Jones was left in charge with a garrison consisting of eighty foot and twenty of Rawdon's Horse. 1 Sir Phelim himself was all this time close by in the House of the Friars at Brantry, whither he had fled upon Lord Conway's approach, leaving Nial O'Neil to defend Charlemont. 8 This fortress was carefully reconnoitred by the four principal British commanders with a view to its capture, but, after a close inspection, they decided that the place was impregnable with the resources at their command. Charlemont, in fact, was the last place in Ulster with a solitary exception of the Castle in Lough Oughter to resist capture, and for over eight years remained in the possession of the Irish. It was never seriously attacked till its final capture by Coote and Venables, the unanimous opinion of the experts of the day being that it was impregnable. Its peculiar strength was supposed to lie in the fact of the river guarding it on one side, and in the wide extent of flat swampy ground by which it was surrounded, which made it unapproach- able by field-pieces. Coote and Venables, however, got their field-pieces up to within fifty yards of the walls without any apparent difficulty, and managed in time to compel a surrender which one can hardly doubt might have been brought about some years earlier, had leaders of equal resolution been in command. The capture of Mount joy fort, another of the creations of the Deputy of that name, presented none of the diffi- culties associated with Charlemont. On June 26, while Conway was at Kinard, Colonel James Clotworthy (a brother of Sir John) put out from Antrim in twelve boats which carried 400 men. On his approaching Mount joy, Neil Oge O'Quin famous for his butcheries at Lissan and Moneymore evacuated the place and fled with all 1 A "Relation" from Lord Conway, 2 Friar 1642] CLOTWORTHY CAPTURES MOUNTJOY 273 his men into the adjoining woods, and Clotworthy landed unopposed. Three days were then spent by Clotworthy in repairing the fort, and on the 29th he marched out with the bulk of his men on a reconnoitring expedition. The moment he entered the woods, Neil Oge O'Quin according to the custom of the country appeared on his flank with a large body of Irish, who marched parallel with the column, beating drums and waving colours, but without making any attempt to attack. Wearying of this mountebank display, and seeing a large open space ahead, Clotworthy sent O'Quin a challenge to come into the open and fight it out. Apparently neither side had any firearms. O'Quin promptly accepted the challenge, but though Clotworthy waited a long while in the open neither O'Quin nor any of his men put in an appear- ance. As soon, however, as Clotworthy started marching home again, they at once reappeared on his flank, as before, with much noise of drums and waving of colours, and so accompanied the column up to the walls of Mount joy. 1 On the following day Clotworthy sent out his twelve boats under Captain Langford and Owen O' Connelly,* who since his adventures in Dublin and his subsequent visit to London had definitely joined Sir John Clot worthy's force. These two sailed round into the mouth of the Black- water, and there, after a short struggle, succeeded in capturing the whole of Sir Phelim's rival fleet of boats. 3 For some months past the Irish leaders had with con- siderable enterprise and energy been building these boats at Charlemont and floating them down the Blackwater to Lough Neagh, where they had a considerable value for purposes of transport. They were no less valuable to Clotworthy, and their capture was only second in importance to that of Mount joy. After Manus O'Cahan's defeat in the Sperrin Mountains and his subsequent capture in Dungiven Castle, his army having now in quick succession lost two commanders drifted south into Co. Tyrone. On June 29 Clot- worthy received word through a spy that the remnant of this army was at Tullahogue, and he resolved to lose no time in attacking it. In accordance with this resolution, 1 "Relation" of Col. Clotworthy. 2 Hibernia Anglicana. 3 Warr of Ireland. The author of Aphorismical Discovery says that Sir Phelim had previously captured several of Clotworthy's boats. 274 BRITISH RELIEF FORCES [CHAP, n he set out on July 1 for Tullahogue with as many of his men as he could spare from the garrison. The Irish, at sight of the Mount joy force, began withdrawing again towards the north, and Clotworthy, foreseeing that there might be great delay and difficulty in bringing on an encounter, had recourse to a ruse. He made his men strip to their shirts and otherwise disguise themselves as Irish, and having by this device got within striking distance he suddenly gave the word to attack. Taken completely by surprise, the Irish made no attempt to stand, but took to their heels with such good will that it does not appear that many came to any harm. The pursuit, however, was continued as far as Moneymore, where Clotworthy released 120 British prisoners, for the most part carpenters, smiths and forge-men, whom Cormac O'Hagan had continued to employ at Sir Thomas Staples' iron works. Cormac O'Hagan's house was burned after all the Clotworthys' valuables, with which it was packed, had been first removed. A systematic drive of the whole country between Moneymore and Mount joy was then organised, which resulted in the capture of 100 cattle and in the release of 380 more British prisoners. The total of 500 prisoners, which Clotworthy claims to have rescued, is probably an exaggeration, intended to magnify the importance of his services, but that he did effect the rescue of a considerable number is borne out by the author of Warr of Ireland. CHAPTER III THE LANDING OF OWEN ROE ONE of the most remarkable circumstances in connection with the rebellion which started with the native rising of 1641 was its duration. By midsummer 1642 it might not unreasonably have been claimed that the rebellion was utterly suppressed. Since Alastair McCollkittagh's victory at Bundooragh, the Irish had sustained defeat after defeat. In the south, Ormonde, Tichborne and Coote, in their respective districts, had been no less uni- formly successful than had been the Stewarts, Montgomery and Monro in the north. Ormonde after a long series of minor successes had met and completely routed an army of 4,000 Irish under Colonel Byrne, Roger Moore and Lord Mountgarret (a grandson of Tyrone) at Kilrush on April 15. Three weeks after Kilrush, Coote in his turn registered an almost equally decisive victory at Trim, in the course of which he himself, however, was shot through the head and killed. These reverses in the south were followed by Sir Phelim's complete overthrow at Glen- maquin, and by the subsequent defeat of Manus O'Cahan's army by the Lagan Force. Sir Phelim himself was shut up in Charlemont ; he had no army left with which to take the field ; Alastair McCollkittagh, his best military leader, was incapacitated by wounds from taking any part in the campaign, and all the principal strongholds in Ulster with the exception of Charlemont and Lough Oughter Castle were in the hands of the British. In such a combination of favourable circumstances, it would seem as though a simultaneous advance by Ormonde, Monro, and the Lagan Force was all that was needed to sweep the country bare of every rebel element. It was, however, in the apparent simplicity of the situation that its real difficulties lay. An advance of the British would 275 276 THE LANDING OF OWEN ROE [CHAP, in have achieved nothing, for there was no Irish army in the field to oppose them, and therefore no victory to be gained except by the capture of Charlemont. On the other hand, the country was effectually denuded of supplies. Protracted operations in the field were an impossibility for any force large enough to ensure success. The only operation which pressed was the investment of Charlemont, and this was admittedly a formidable under- taking, calling for regular supplies and proper siege equip- ment. For such an undertaking there was no enthusiasm either among leaders or men. Monro's army had received no pay since it landed. 1 The Lagan Force had been even longer without pay.* The Newry garrison, which was part of Monro's force, was not only without pay, but very nearly without food.* " They were reduced to such misery," Carte writes, " by the want of money, clothes, ammunition and victuals that it was a wonder how they kept from disbanding." * The Pale army, if we can believe Carte's description, was in a worse con- dition even than the northern forces. In the case of the Pale, no less than of the northern armies, it was the clothing problem which presented the greatest difficulties in the way of an advance. The postponement of pay could be endured, food supplies might by luck or by chance have been found by any expeditionary force, but clothing and boots were by no means procurable except from England, and England was not, at the moment, in a position to furnish either. Although Edgehill, the first battle of the war between King and Parliament, was still three months distant, all the energies and all the money resources of both parties were being strained to the utmost to ensure victory in the armed encounter, which all fore- saw could not be long delayed. In the face of so imminent a crisis at home, affairs in Ireland assumed a very secondary importance, and the forces which had been so hastily commissioned in the hour of acute danger were left to shift for themselves. In the absence of direct instructions to the contrary from some recognised authority, these forces, not unnaturally, remained inactive. The pressing need for their activities was passed. Operations in the field entailed many hardships and privations from which they 1 Reid. 3 Memoirs of Sir James Turner. 2 Mayor of Deny to Monro. * Life ofjOrmonde, vol. i. p. 350. 1642] OWEN ROE'S PARENTAGE 277 were, for the moment, immune, and which were not to be hastily incurred except under direct orders. Such orders were not forthcoming, nor could any man tell with certainty in what direction to look for his instructions. The exe- cutive in Ireland was divided and was, at the moment, more concerned with party politics than with the suppression of the rebellion. The English Parliament was, beyond any shadow of doubt, honestly desirous of a prosecution of the war against the Irish, though incapacitated for the moment from furnishing the sinews thereof. It is to be doubted whether the King and the royalist party were equally enthusiastic on the subject. It seems far from improbable that at this period with war in England imminent and with the passing of the immediate danger to the British colony in Ireland the minds of Ormonde and of the King had once more reverted to the possibility of enlisting the services of the Irish against the Puritan menace. All these causes combined to produce a temporary paralysis of armed activity in Ulster, and, while men looked on in hesitation, wondering who was their pay- master, and which of the two great parties in England was destined to gain the ascendancy, the entire political outlook was revolutionised by the landing in Lough Swilly on July 15 of Owen Me Art O'Neil, better known as Owen Roe. This remarkable man was the son of Art McBaron, who was the elder, but illegitimate, brother of Hugh, Earl of Tyrone. Art McBaron himself had been a man of few attainments, but his sons were more celebrated, and justly so. Of these, the best known with the exception of Owen Roe had been Brian McArt. Brian, like his father before him, was illegitimate, and, having no landed possessions of his own, took early steps to rectify this by usurping those of others with considerable success. Chiches- ter gave him the character of being the most able man in Ulster at the end of the sixteenth century, and with a stronger following even than Tyrone. 1 Brian was finally executed in 1607 for murdering a kinsman of his in the house of Tirlough McHenry of the Fews, during a drunken brawl. 1 He must have been"at least I twenty I years (older than Owen 1 Chichester to Privy Council, August 1607. * Earl of Tyrone's Articles, Gal. State Papers, James, p. 502. 278 THE LANDING OF OWEN ROE [CHAP, in Roe, and probably by a different mother. The latter, as a small boy, had left the country with Tyrone in 1607, and had served for the greater part of his life in the Spanish Army. He was considered by many to have the first claim to the banned title of O'Neil, by virtue of his direct descent from Con Bacagh, but this view was not shared by Sir Phelim, who, as the great-great-grandson of Shane O'Neil, considered his own claims to be the stronger. Although there might be some difference of opinion as to which of the two had the prior claim to be called O'Neil, there could be absolutely none as to which was the better military commander, and the better man generally. Owen Roe was not officially appointed Commander-in- Chief in Ulster till October, but he was tacitly recognised as the leader by the entire population of Ulster from the moment of his landing. From Dogh Castle, where he had rested for a few days, he moved to Charlemont, where, as one of his first acts, he held an inquiry into the methods employed by the rebels since the commencement of the rising, nine months earlier. On learning of the whole- sale atrocities that had been committed, he expressed the utmost horror and repugnance. He ordered all such British prisoners as had escaped Lord Conway's search to be sent at once to Dundalk, and threatened that, if there was any attempt to repeat the atrocities of the past nine months, he would join the British. As a practical mark of his displeasure, he at once burned a number of houses around Kinard belonging to Sir Phelim's more notorious cut-throats. 1 Sir Phelim himself seems to have come in for a fair share of Owen Roe's indignation an affront which the deposed Ulster leader had to swallow at the time, but which he never forgave. From that time on there was a bitter hatred between the two members of the O'Neil family. Sir Phelim was by no means the only enemy that Owen Roe succeeded in making at the outset of his career as Commander-in-Chief. He had been elected to the supreme command on account of his birth, his foreign reputation and experience, and also on account of the intense interest which he had shown from very early days (long before Sir Phelim had been admitted to the secret) in the question of a native rising. He also acquired 1 Dep. of Elizabeth Price. 1642] OWEN ROE'S MILITARY QUALITIES 279 an immediate importance on account of the arms, ammuni- tion and money with which he had come provided. How- ever, in spite of the position to which he was voted, he never succeeded in achieving popularity with his fellow- countrymen. Burning with political ardour and with religious enthusiasm, he had landed in Ireland full of high resolves for the welfare of a native country which he only dimly remembered. He had dreamed of leading heroic bands of warriors against the usurping Saxons, and of driving them by shock of arms from Ireland's shores. His disillusionment on landing was instantaneous and thorough. In place of warriors he found assassins, and in place of high-souled patriotism mere sordid avarice. Of what his temperament had been in other countries we know little, but we know that, from the moment of his landing in Ireland, he became morose and taciturn. 1 Rinuccini described him as " brooding, silent and reserved." His handsome features 2 took on a pensive and even melan- choly look, born no doubt of some premonition of his impending failure. For a failure he must be admitted, in spite of his one great victory at Benburb. To those who study him analytically he was a disappointment, and there can be little doubt that he was a bitter dis- appointment to himself. He had the essentials of a great and successful commander. Carte says of him : " He was a man of great experience and of consummate skill in military affairs. Quick in spying, and diligent in improving any advantage offered him by the enemy, and infinitely careful to give the enemy no advantage over himself." From the purely military point of view, it would be hard to frame higher terms of praise. In the words of Carte's description lies all that men seek for in their greatest generals. Beyond this, he was reputed to be a man of unswerving integrity, never known to break his word even in trifles. " I am so unalterably constant and steadfast in my resolutions and ways," he wrote to Monro in August 1649, " that, where my promise or parole is once really engaged, I would rather die a thousand times than one inch to decline or deviate from the same." J 1 Aphorismical Discovery. 3 See portrait in Ulster Journal of Archceology. 3 Owen Roe to Monro, August 22, 1649. 280 THE LANDING OF OWEN ROE [CHAP, m The arrival of Owen Roe and his staff in Ulster meant that the Irish cause had at length an able and experienced commander at its head, backed up by many well-tried subordinate leaders. It meant, however, something more than this. The ship which conveyed Owen Roe brought also an abundance of arms, ammunition and money the first substantial proof of continental sympathy with the Irish struggle against English interests. This was only the forerunner of many similar consignments sent over from the Continent during the course of the next few years. At no time, after the middle of 1642, had the Irish cause to complain of any lack of money or of war material. Richelieu was generous, and Spain and the Vatican were but little behind Richelieu in a desire to help the Catholic cause with everything needful to a successful campaign. In the confused triangular fight between Royalists, Parliamentarians and Irish, which for ten years to come was destined to drain the life-blood of both natives and British in Ireland, incomparably the richest party, up to the time of the landing of Cromwell, was the Irish party. Owen Roe, however, was only an occasional participator in the continuous subsidies with which it was fed. The dislike and distrust of the Supreme Council at Kilkenny from the very first crippled the Ulster leader's powers and paralysed his schemes. To this sus- tained hostility on the part of the executive body of the Confederate Catholics, and to his own persistent ill- health, must be attributed Owen Roe's failure. In addition to the ship which landed him in Donegal, a second ship was sent round to Wexford with a supple- mentary consignment of money, arms and veteran leaders. Yet another ship had preceded him to Killibegs, which ship also carried a heavy cargo of ammunition and war material -" as much," wrote Owen Roe, " as I deemed needful to answer the necessities of this country." l 1 Owen Roe to Brian Maguire, July 18, 1642. CHAPTER IV GENERAL HOSTILITY TO OWEN ROE THE great things which had been expected of Owen Roe did not immediately follow upon his arrival. The better part of a year was allowed to elapse after his landing before he assumed anything in the nature of a warlike attitude. The delay does not seem to have been due to lack of enterprise on the part of Owen Roe so much as to the absence of an adequate army at his back. Many members of the Ulster forces that had fared so disastrously under Sir Phelim's leadership had dispersed to their homes, and were by no means too eager to renew a cam- paign of which they still held unpleasant memories. Owen Roe had brought with him skilled commanders and war material in plenty, but he was entirely dependent on the country for his rank and file, and he was too ex- perienced a leader to fall into the error of taking the field before he had these in proper military trim. He had in a measure contributed to his own unpreparedness by sending one of his Spanish ammunition ships to Wexford. This generous act, as events turned out, operated very adversely, not only to Owen Roe's personal interests but to his patriotic aims, for the contents of the Wexford ships were seized upon by the Irish Executive at Kilkenny and very unfairly detained for the benefit of the Leinster army. This had no doubt been Owen Roe's intention when he sent the ship to Wexford, but he had no reason to anticipate at that time that the Leinster army would not only fail to co-operate with him, but would actually prove hostile to the main objects for which he had come to Ireland. The detention of the war material carried on the Wexford ship was the first indication of the threatened hostility of the Supreme Council to Owen Roe's schemes. It was an obviously hostile act, because the Kilkenny 281 282 GENERAL HOSTILITY TO OWEN ROE [CHAP, iv Executive (which was in fact the controlling Irish Executive for all four provinces) was already fully provided with all the war material it required a fact of which Owen Roe had no knowledge when he sent one of his ships to a Leinster harbour. During the third week in September Colonel Thomas Preston, a brother of Lord Gormanston, had sailed into Wexford harbour with seven transport ships from Dunkirk escorted by three French men-of-war. According to Carte, five similar transports from Nantes had preceded Preston, and seven others from Rochelle and St. Malo followed him, making a total of nineteen transports carrying men and war material for the Irish. Further supplies for the use of the Kilkenny Executive were obtained by the seizure of several English provision ships bound for Dublin. Preston brought with him five hundred officers, some big guns, vast stores of ammunition, and several thousand Irish soldiers whom Richelieu had released from service in France in order that they might fight the British in their own country. The Cardinal supplemented this friendly act by an undertaking to finance the Irish cause up to a million crowns. 1 On October 20 two more ship-loads consigned to the Supreme Council at Kilkenny arrived from Italy ; of these one discharged its cargo at Wexford and the other at Dun- garvan. These two ships brought from the Pope four cannon, four thousand muskets, great stores of ammuni- tion, and 3,000 in cash. 8 On learning of the arrival of these two successive con- signments of war material at the Irish headquarters, Owen Roe hurried south to Kilkenny with a view to putting in an application for a reasonable share of the arms and money received, or at any rate for a return of the contents of the ship which he himself had sent to Wexford. His application was not favourably received. Preston opposed it on the grounds that the needs of Leinster were at the moment far greater than those of Ulster, and Preston, as the provider of the supplies from France, was the popular favourite at the moment. All that Owen Roe could extract from the Supreme Council was a grant of a thousand muskets, which left him very sorely dissatisfied, and which did nothing to 1 Carte, vol. i. p. 367. * Aphoriamical Disc., p. 49. 1642] THE SUPREME COUNCIL 283 increase the love between him and Preston. Sir Phelim, who was at Kilkenny at the time, seeing as he thought in the action of the Supreme Council unmistakable signs of Preston's ascendancy, and of the corresponding down- fall of Owen Roe, seized the opportunity to marry the former's daughter. The Supreme Council of Confederate Catholics which from this time on controlled the movements of the Irish armies had its headquarters at Kilkenny and was composed of three delegates from each province. Lord Mountgarret was its first President, but his presence was dispensed with on account of his age (he was over seventy) and the first official meeting at Kilkenny on October 24, 1642, was held under the Presidency of Mr. Nicolas Plunkett. The Supreme Council, from its very nature as the depository for all money and war material from the Continent, was always in a position to enforce its edicts upon such as proved obstinate, even though such edicts might not be wholly in the national interests. Its surface policy in fact was not in its own keeping. The sinews of war so lavishly supplied by Richelieu, Spain and the Vatican were provided in the name and for the ends of the Holy Roman Church, and religion was therefore of necessity placarded in large type in the forefront of the Supreme Council propaganda. The arrival, in fact, of Preston with his fleet of transports opened a wholly new chapter in the history of the Irish revolt against British institutions. With the money and the arms and ammunition, the control passed out of the hands of the native Irish into those of the Anglo-Irish gentry of the Pale, or the " Old English " as they were popularly called, and with the change of control came a change of programme. The original idea of the extinction of the Ulster colonists, the cancellation of the Plantation grants, and a general reversion to the status in quo- ante was viewed with little favour by the Leinster Roman Catholic gentry. This is even an understatement of the case. There can be no doubt that a reversal of the Plantation grants, at which the leaders of the native Irish party aimed before all else, was very greatly dreaded by all the Old English, including the Lords and gentry of the Pale, who were themselves in every case alien usurpers, if in- vestigation was allowed to go far enough back. If the process of dispossessing foreign colonists was once set in 284 GENERAL HOSTILITY TO OWEN ROE [CHAP, iv motion^ it was a foregone conclusion that the Old English would quickly follow in the wake of the more recent Ulster settlers. The proclaimed aims of the native Irish left no room for doubt on this score : " No English, this programme announced,, should ever set foot in Ireland again." 1 " Even the very language must be forgotten ; none to speak English under a penalty." * " Not an English beast, or any of that breed must be left in the Kingdom." J " The English tongue should not be spoken, and all English names given to towns, etc., should be abolished and the ancient Irish names restored." 4 When this preliminary programme had been carried through England was to be invaded and conquered, and degraded to the status of an Irish province. 5 A programme such as the above could only flourish in an atmosphere of very great ignorance, and it did not long survive Monro's land- ing at Carrickfergus. By that time the credulous country people had been partially disillusioned. Contrary to their expectations, and contrary to the sanguine predictions of Sir Phelim and his colleagues, the British element in Ire- land had not been extinguished. Many thousands of innocent people chiefly women and children had been done to death, but the men of British race, so far from being exterminated, or even subjugated, had banded together and inflicted a series of humiliating defeats on the would-be conquerors of England. It became apparent, even to the most obsessed, that the Pan-Irish idea could no longer be successfully exploited. The only possible hope of realising the national dreams lay in the monetary help, and possibly in the armed intervention, of the Con- tinental Powers, and the only recognised channel for the influx of these succours was the Supreme Council. The immediate and most important effect of these un- foreseen developments was that Owen Roe in place of being the recognised leader of a great national movement was relegated to the position of a subsidiary ally, practi- cally under the orders of a section of the community that he hated and despised far more than he did the British 1 Dep. of Hugh Madderer. Dep. of Joseph Montgomery. 3 Dep. of Richard Claybrooke. * Examination of the Rev. George Creichton. 6 Leland. 1642] THE SUPREME COUNCIL PROGRAMME 285 themselves. Religion and hatred of the Parliament were in fact the only points in common between Owen Roe and the new control, and with the idea of sustaining unity of aim as long as possible these two points were fittingly advertised in the national programme, the words " loyalty to the King " being sub- stituted for " hatred of the Parliament." A further surface concession was made to the aspirations of the dispossessed Ulster chiefs by announcing, as part of the official pro- gramme, that no Protestant was henceforth to own land in Ireland. The original proclamation in the native Irish programme had been that " none of English blood was to own land in Ireland" ; but, as this might easily have been interpreted as including the members of the Supreme Council and their friends, the word " Protestant " was substituted, an alteration which not only safeguarded the Old English, but which lent to the entire movement a religious atmosphere which harmonised suitably with the designs of its continental paymasters. By advertising its enthusiasm for the cause of King Charles (which was probably genuine) the Supreme Council at the same time dexterously shed the taint of rebellion which had hitherto been associated with the Irish rising. It became thence- forth a royalist organisation opposing with all its resources the evil machinations of a rebel Parliament. It need scarcely be said that the sudden apotheosis of Preston and his associates of the Pale was the bitterest of gall to Owen Roe. Owen Roe was second to none in re- ligious enthusiasm, and he no doubt genuinely preferred the royalist cause to that of the Parliament ; but he was first and foremost a patriot, and the cause for which he had come to Ireland, and for which he was in arms, was the expulsion of the Ulster colonists and the re-establish- ment of the old Irish feudalism. Such aims, as already explained, were viewed by the Supreme Council as revo- lutionary and dangerous, and by no means to be encouraged by reckless subsidies. Owen Roe was given a thousand muskets, which it was hoped would be sufficient to retain his allegiance without at the same time putting too much power into his hands. He was appointed Governor of Ulster and Commander-in-Chief of the Ulster army, his rival, and ultimate enemy, Preston, being at the same time appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Leinster army. The latter had 286 GENERAL HOSTILITY TO OWEN ROE [CHAP, iv now under him one of the best-equipped armies ever seen in Ireland. He commenced his campaign auspiciously by capturing a number of strongholds in Leinster, the garri- sons surrendering at his approach and being well treated. In fights in the open, however, he was singularly unfor- tunate. He was badly defeated by Monck at Ballynakill 1 in Queen's Co., and early in 1643 Sir James Dillon completely routed him near Mullingar.' On St. Patrick's Day, Preston was again very badly beaten at Ballybeg, where we are told by the Irish chronicler that though the gentry and officers fought bravely, the rank and file refused to follow them, and the leaders were left to their fate. 8 Owen Roe in Ulster fared but little better than his rival in Leinster ; but Owen Roe had the excuse of a badly equipped army while Preston had practically unlimited resources behind him. The Ulster leader's only recorded success during his first year in Ireland was the capture of Dungannon, which Theophilus Jones after being reduced to absolute starvation was compelled to surrender to him. Jones and the whole of his garrison were safely conducted by Owen Roe to Mount joy, 4 according to the terms of capi- tulation, and Nial O'Neil, a first cousin of Sir Phelim, was left in charge. Owen Roe's first field action in Ulster was practically forced upon him by Moiiro. On April 5 that commander, having received five weeks' provisions from England, felt justified in pushing afield as far as Loughgall in Co. Armagh, where he suddenly found himself confronted by Owen Roe at the head of 1,500 foot and 2 companies of horse. 6 The country, we are told, was very thickly enclosed with ditches and banks, behind which Owen Roe's force was so strongly posted that at first Monro's men shrank from attacking. " Fie, fie," cried the Scottish General in disgust, " run awa' frae awheen rebels ! " And, dismounting from his horse, he seized a pike and placed himself at their head. 6 Inspired by this example, Sir James Turner, Major Both- wick and Captain Drummond led their men forward and drove back the opposing infantry. There was apparently nothing in the nature of a rout, Owen Roe withdrawing 1 Carte. 3 ibid. p. 62. * Aphorismical Disc. * Despatch of an unknown officer. 6 Despatch of an unknown officer. The fight took place at Anaghsamrie. 6 Rdat-lon of Col. Henry O'Neil ; Memoirs of Sir James Turner ; Aphorismical Disc. 1648] MONTGOMERY INVADES CENTRAL ULSTER 287 his men to Charlemont in comparatively good order. The house in Loughgall that he had hitherto occupied was, however, burnt. Monro marched on the following day to Tandaragee, where there appears to have been another engagement in the course of which Carte says that Monro lost Sir James Lockhart and a hundred men. Turner, who was present on the occasion, makes no mention of any such loss of men, but tells us that Sir James Lockhart was shot in the stomach and killed while pursuing some Irish through a wood. Apparently satisfied with his performance in Armagh, Monro returned to Carrickfergus at the end of April. The example he had set of invading Owen Roe's territory was immediately followed by Colonel Chichester and young Lord Montgomery, whose father had died in the November preceding. These two got together a force of 2.000 foot and 250 horse with which they marched into Armagh, and through that county into Monaghan and Cavan, pillaging the country as they went. It is a singular fact, of which there is no explanation, that Owen Roe made no attempt to interfere in any way with this foraging expedition, and the Co. Down force returned whence it had come without meeting with any opposition. Owen Roe's inaction is all the more unaccountable in view of the fact that the effect of Chichester's raid was to reduce his sources of supply to such a low pitch that he was forced to make preparations for abandoning his position at Charlemont and moving south into Leitrim. As he was on the point of moving, two men named Rory O'Hara and Loughlin McRory * brought information to the two Stewarts, who were at Newtownstewart, of Owen Roe's predicament, and they resolved on instant action. The Lagan Force, since we last saw it, had undergone considerable changes, the most conspicuous being the inclusion under its banner of two of the Enniskillen regiments, which were placed under the command of Colonel Saunderson and Colonel Galbraith, and added to the three existing regiments commanded by the two Stewarts and Audley Mervyn. Each regiment had a troop of horse attached. 8 According to Carte, the six Derry 1 Owen Roe afterwards caught and hanged Loughlin McRory, but he failed to lay his hands on O'Hara. 2 W arr of Ireland. 20 288 GENERAL HOSTILITY TO OWEN ROE [CHAP, iv companies and the six Coleraine companies were also entitled to describe themselves as members of the Lagan Force, and " all this Force," he adds, " behaved with great bravery upon all occasions." * The acknowledged leader of this select little army had always been Sir Robert Stewart. In September 1642 the Lords Justices influenced by Sir William Stewart's well-known parlia- mentary leanings issued an order that he was to assume the chief command of the Lagan Force. There was, however, such a general outburst of indignation from all the officers and men that the Lords Justices thought it best to withdraw their order, and the younger brother Sir Robert remained in command. The Stewarts, on receipt of their information, at once made a forced march into Monaghan with such troops as they could hastily get together. They reached Clones on June 13, 1643, while Owen Roe was in the very act of withdrawing his army and such stores as he had left towards the south. Owen Roe had received sufficient warning of the approach of the Lagan Force to enable him to send off a message to the O'Reillys asking them to come to his aid. Owing, however, either to lack of time or lack of preparedness, they did not put in an appearance in time for the battle. Without the addition of the O'Reillys, Owen Roe's force consisted of 1,600 fighting men accompanied by an equal number of cattle-drivers. Mulhollan, in his Warr of Ireland, says that the Lagan Force at Clones consisted of the three original regiments and four companies of Sir William Balfour's regiment. Robert Thornton, however, who, as Mayor of Deny, must have been far better informed than an officer whose duties lay on the far side of Lough Neagh, states positively in a letter to Ormonde that the total strength of the Lagan Force at Clones was 600 foot and 45 horse. 8 Owen Roe retreated before Stewart's advance till the river Finn (Co. Monaghan) was reached, on the far bank of which his infantry faced about and prepared to defend the passage. The Irish horse were left to hold off the advance of the Lagan Force till the dispositions of Owen Roe's infantry should have been completed. This they did not succeed in doing for long. They were almost im- 1 Carte, vol. i. p. 366. * Robert Thornton to Ormonde, October 17, 1643. 1648] BATTLE OF CLONES 289 mediately put to flight and chased to the river, which they managed to cross in safety, and where the pursuit of the Lagan Force was for a time checked by the fire of the infantry on the far bank. Stewart then brought up his foot to the attack. Even then the passage of the ford was for a long time hotly contested, but the Lagan Force gradually forced its way across, whereupon the Irish broke and fled. Owen Roe was greatly disappointed at the behaviour of his men, and in subsequently writing to Sir Robert Stewart he attributed his defeat, rightly or wrongly, to the cowardice of Shane Oge O'Neil, who was in command of the infantry. 1 The defeat, according to Carte, was the worst the Irish had yet sustained in Ulster. The Lagan Force carried on the pursuit for ten miles, and very nearly succeeded in capturing both Owen Roe and his son, Henry Roe. The Aphorismical Discovery attributes their escape to the fact that they killed five out of the six men who were pursuing them. Very few of the others, however, were as fortunate as the Commander-in-Chief and his son. Cormac O'Hagan, the victor at Garvagh, was amongst the killed, and most of the trained officers whom Owen Roe had brought with him from Spain were either killed or taken prisoners. One of these, named Con Oge O'Neil, was, we are told by Mul- hollan, murdered after capture by a minister who rode up behind and shot him in the back, to the great indig- nation of Sir Robert Stewart. 8 The rest of the captives were taken to Derry, where they were retained as prisoners for three years, and were finally exchanged for some of the British officers captured on the defeat of Monro at Benburb. Derry had great rejoicings over the victory of the Lagan Force, and enthusiastically elected Sir Robert Stewart Governor of the city in place of Sir John Vaughan, who had just died. Greatly discouraged and shaken by his defeat, Owen Roe made his way first to Cavan and thence to Kilkenny, there to offer to the Supreme Council explanations of his various failures. Daniel O'Cahan was left in command of the Ulster forces. This man, who had arrived in Ireland with Owen Roe, and who was reputed his best and most experienced leader, very shortly afterwards came to an 1 Owen Roe to Sir Robert Stewart, June 16, 1643. 2 Warr of Ireland. 290 GENERAL HOSTILITY TO OWEN ROE [CHAP, iv unfortunate end in the following manner. He and Sir Phelim were reconnoitring in the Large (Aughracloy) dis- trict with 100 foot and 100 horse, when they chanced upon five horsemen belonging to the Lagan Force. O'Cahan at once charged the enemy, but Sir Phelim and the rest of the horse failed to follow, and, to add to O'Cahan's mis- fortunes, his horse stumbled and fell. The Lagan men at once seized the fallen man, who was carried off in front of the saddle of one of the troopers. Upon witnessing this disaster, Sir Phelim persuaded his men to attempt the rescue of their leader, and they galloped in pursuit. After a time the horse which carried the double weight began to fall behind, whereupon its rider, finding himself being overtaken, shot his prisoner through the head and made good his escape. 1 The author of the Aphorismical Discovery, as usual, makes the assertion that O'Cahan yielded upon promise of quarter and was afterwards killed, but it is difficult to see how he arrived at this fact unless the five Lagan men volunteered the information. O'Mellan, who was probably present on the occasion, makes no such statement. The immediate effect of the battle of Clones and the withdrawal of Owen Roe's army into Cavan was that Dungannon once more changed hands. In August it was invested by a large force under Monro, Montgomery, Clandeboye and Chichester, and Nial O'Neil was compelled to surrender. In recognition of Owen Roe's former treat- ment of Jones, the entire garrison, including the com- mander, were allowed to march out with their arms, and with colours flying, 2 and Sir Theophilus Jones was once more re-established in his old post. Encouraged by these successes, the British force once again made an attempt to secure the surrender of Charlemont, to which place Nial O'Neil had made his way from Dungannon, and of which he at once took over command. The attempt proved a complete failure, and after a couple of weeks the British force returned to its base. On September 12, just about the time that the siege of Charlemont was abandoned, Owen Roe secured a partial victory at Portlester, in Co. Meath, against a force under the command of Lord Moore. The casualties, we are told, were few on either side, and the battle was ultimately decided 1 Friar O'Mellan and Aphorismical Disc. * Friar O'Mellan. 1643] DEATH OF LORD MOORE 291 by the death of Lord Moore, who received a direct hit from a cannon which had been laid by Owen Roe himself. On seeing the death of their leader, the British force retired, carrying his remains with them. 1 Lord Moore, who was a grandson of Sir Garrett Moore, so strongly suspected of complicity with Tyrone in Eliza- bethan times, was a very gallant and able soldier, and his death was deeply lamented. Three days after the Portlester affair Ormonde, on behalf of the King, signed a Cessation of hostilities for twelve months, the other party to the Agreement being the Supreme Council acting on behalf of the Irish people. i Carte. CHAPTER V THE CESSATION OF 1643 THE Cessation of 1643 was the first practical expression of the sympathy and similarity of aims which really bound Ormonde and the Supreme Council to one another, and which ultimately brought about a permanent alliance between the two. Ormonde was a Protestant, while the Supreme Council were necessarily Roman Catholics ; but, except in this one particular, they were antagonistic in nothing that was essential, The Supreme Council's pro- fessions of religious enthusiasm were in the main a pose, adopted for the benefit of their continental friends who furnished the sinews of war. Both Ormonde and the Supreme Council suspected and disliked the native Irish and dreaded their ascendancy under the leadership of Owen Roe. Both alike were ardent Royalists not so much, in every case, from love of the King as from hatred of the Puritan Parliament against which he was fighting. In view of Owen Roe's recent victory at Portlester, and in view of the immense superiority of the Irish over their opponents in the matter of numbers, money and arms, the action of the Supreme Council in agreeing to a Cessation is to be explained but not easily excused. The nominal justification put forward was that the country would be best served by a combination of Ormonde and the Irish against the parliamentary menace. This was plausible enough, but the rejoinder from Owen Roe's point of view was that the effect of the arrangement would be to leave Ulster wholly at the mercy of Monro, which was practically true. The special hardship of the position in Owen Roe's eyes lay in the fact that, while he himself was bound hand and foot by the terms of a Cessation signed by the Supreme Council, his opponents in Ulster declined to be similarly bound by a compact as to which they had not been consulted and with 292 1643] ORMONDE APPOINTED LORD-LIEUTENANT 293 the spirit of which they were not in agreement. The Irish Parliament went even further. Five days after the Ces- sation had been signed, that greatly reduced body, under the direction of the Lords Justices Borlase and Tichborne, passed an official repudiation of the whole transaction. 1 Monro in the north, who seems to have had a considerable respect and admiration for Owen Roe, did not go so far as publicly to repudiate the Cessation, but he declined to be bound by it beyond certain limits. In this resolution he had the support of most of the " Old Scots " leaders in Ulster. By the terms of the Cessation in question each party was entitled to reap the crops on any lands which it was occupy- ing on September 15. It is obvious that in such a condition lay the seeds of boundless conflict and confusion. Monro claimed that he had been in occupation of the whole of Ulster with the exception of Donegal and the three southern counties, and, on the strength of this claim, proceeded to cut all the corn he could find. On one occasion either he or Chichester, coming suddenly upon a party of Irish cutting corn to which they were not supposed to be entitled, killed all the reapers, men, women and children. 2 Owen Roe wrote to Ormonde complaining bitterly of this act and protesting against the unfairness of a contract which was not binding on the Ulster Scots, and which at the same time effectually tied his own hands. His indignation finds a suitable echo in the lamentations of the priest who acted as his secretary and who is the author of the work known as the Aphorismical Discovery. " Oh, poor nation ! " he cries, in allusion to the signing of the treaty. " Oh more weak than goshlings ! that forebears such an inevitable fate that to the present act is annexed ! But nothing will be done. Och ! Och ! " Ormonde's attitude in the matter is quite intelligible. He had just been created a Marquis and appointed Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland by Charles, who at the same time cancelled Lord Leicester's appointment. The King's action was not entirely disinterested, for, together with his patent as Lord-Lieutenant, Ormonde received definite instructions to conclude peace with the rebels at any price, 1 Carte, vol. i. p. 450. 8 Owen Roe to Ormonde, September 27, 1643 ; Chichester to Owen Roe, October 3, 1643. 294 THE CESSATION OF 1643 [CHAP, v in order that the English troops in Ireland might be released for service against the Parliament in England. There was always also in the King's mind a lingering hope that the Irish themselves might be prevailed upon to cross the channel and fight his battles for him. The terms on which the Supreme Council consented to make peace were that Ormonde, and the English royalist troops under him, should combine with them against the parliamentary forces in Ireland, as represented at the moment by Monro and his " New Scots " army. Ormonde agreed, provided the Supreme Council would undertake to send 10,000 Irish troops to fight the Parliament in England, and provided the Supreme Council paid him 30,000 half in money and half in supplies so as to enable him to put his troops in the necessary state of efficiency for service against the Parliament. These terms were eventually agreed to, and the stipulated sum appears to have been paid to Ormonde, but the promised Irish troops were never sent. The Supreme Council made some pretence of anxiety to do its part. Colonel Barry offered to raise 3,000 out of the 10,000 promised, Lord Taafe, 2,000, Sir John Dargan 2,000, and the Lords of the Pale the remaining 3,000. " But," says Carte, " none of these promises or professions took effect, nor was there so much as one regiment or company carried over for the King's service." * Ormonde, who was heart and soul devoted to the royal cause, was not unnaturally dis- gusted at the failure of the Supreme Council to live up to its promises. He himself did the best he could in the circumstances by sending over two separate contingents of his English soldiers, but the total number so sent was under 3,300, and both contingents were severely defeated by the Parliament shortly after landing in England. Monro 's harvesting operations in Ulster do not appear to have been sufficiently productive for the feeding of all his garrisons, and considerable shortage still reigned. Mulhollan tells us that Monro had all the bread in the province, but no meat or butter, while Owen Roe had all the meat and butter but no bread, and a certain amount of exchange seems to have taken place between the two leaders. 8 Monro, however, was very careful to keep all the food supplies which he had acquired in his own hands i Carte, vol. i. p. 474. Warr of Ireland. 1644] RECALL OF MONRO'S ARMY 295 for the use of his " New Scots " army. He was beginning to suspect many of the " Old Scots," i.e. the 1610 settlers, of royalist leanings. For these suspicions there were some grounds. Ormonde always indefatigable in the King's cause was doing his utmost at the time to win over the northern leaders to the King's party, and Monro was by no means disposed to furnish these with supplies which might in the near future be used to his own disadvan- tage. Sinclair and Turner at Newry were both officers of his own, but they, none the less, were included in his list of suspects and left to shift for themselves. The garrison was soon on the verge of starvation. Sir William Cole at Enniskillen, and Jones at Dungannon were in little better state. Sir John Clotworthy at Antrim appears to have been the only eastern commander who retained Monro's complete confidence. The Lagan Force in the north-west was admittedly outside of his jurisdiction, and was by general consent expected to provide for itself from the country west of the Bann and Lough Neagh. At the beginning of February 1644 the food situation in Ulster became so bad that an order came from Scotland for the recall of Monro's army, which it was found im- possible to supply with the necessaries of military existence from the far side of the channel. The announcement occasioned general dismay amongst the Ulster colonists, and a petition signed by practically all the officers of Monro's force and of the Lagan Force was sent to Scotland urging the reconsideration of the edict. Monro himself was greatly averse to moving, being on the point of con- tracting an alliance with the widow of the late Lord Montgomery ; but the rank and file of his army, who had for some time past been very mutinous, were overjoyed at the prospect of being relieved from the state of semi- starvation to which they had for so long been doomed. As a preliminary to moving, Monro ordered a withdrawal of the garrisons from Newry, Dungannon and Mountjoy, and from the small Castles lying along the Bann between Castle Toombe and Coleraine. Sinclair and Turner at Newry sup- pressed the fact that the garrison had been recalled, and tried to turn the occasion to profit by selling the place to the native Irish. With this end in view, Turner met Tir- lough Oge of Loughrosse at Kirriotter (Poyntzpass) to dis- cuss terms. Each, according to arrangement, came accom- 296 THE CESSATION OF 1643 [CHAP, v panied by twenty men, and, after the consumption of much whisky, it was finally arranged that the place should be handed over to Owen Roe in consideration of the immediate delivery of 140 cows for the use of the starving garrison. 1 The deal, however, did not go through, for, before the cows were forthcoming, Ormonde came forward with a better offer of 80, which was accepted, and Newry passed into the hands of the Royalists, Colonel Matthews (of Dromore fame) being appointed its Governor. This incident is of interest as showing that, though Ormonde and Owen Roe were now nominally allied against the parliamentarian Monro, there was still very great distrust between the two and a strong desire on the part of each to wrest important strongholds out of the keeping of the other. As a matter of fact, these preliminary retrench- ments on the part of Monro were unnecessary, as the petition of the Scottish officers proved effective, and the order to evacuate Ulster was rescinded. On November 28, 1643, nearly three months before the order came for the withdrawal of the Scots army, it had been resolved, at a meeting of English and Scottish Commissioners, held in Edinburgh, to send off at once 10,000 suits of clothes, 3,000 muskets, 15,000 barrels of meal, 1,500 pikes, 500 pistols, and 10,000 on account of arrears of pay, the balance of 50,000 to be delivered at Carrickfergus on the 1st of February following.* Money difficulties, however, in both countries prevented the scheme from being carried through, and, in place of its fulfilment, came the order for Monro's withdrawal. The urgent petition of the Scottish officers in Ulster brought about a reconsideration of the whole question, as a result of which the consignment of money and clothing, already described, was delivered at Carrickfergus in April 1644. About the same time the situation was still further relieved by the arrival at Carrickfergus of two Dutch ships laden with provisions which had been sent across as a charitable gift by the Dutch people in a desire to help the distressed Protestants in the north of Ireland. 1 Carte, vol. i. p. 486 ; Memoirs of Sir James Turner. 1 Carte, vol. i. p. 486. CHAPTER VI THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT THE Cessation of 1643, while relieving the country from the turmoil and stress of active war, gave at the same time much-needed opportunities for the consideration of outside matters. Of these there was none at the moment to compare, in point of public interest, with the semi-religious and semi-political compact between England and Scotland, known as " The Solemn League and Cove- nant." This compact was a revival, in an expanded form, of the old " Covenant with God " which had been called into existence by Queen Mary's persecution of the Protestants in 1581. Its revival was brought about by State needs rather than by religious troubles. The Cornish rising in 1643 which gave the King the whole of the west country, and which culminated in the surrender of Bristol, so seriously alarmed the Parliament that Sir Harry Vane was sent to Edinburgh to invoke the aid of Scotland. The terms ultimately agreed to, in consideration of which the Scots undertook to throw their weight into the scale against the Royalists, included the permanent establishment of the Presbyterian religion in Scotland, the conformity of the English and Irish Churches to the Scottish form of worship, and the extirpation of Papacy and prelacy. Such was the Solemn League and Covenant, which was in effect a political treaty between England and Scotland, the Scots undertaking to give military aid in return for certain religious reforms. In their first joy at an alliance which relieved them from very grave dangers, the Members of the House of Commons showed an enthusiasm for the new oath which was equal to that of Scotland itself. On September 25 the whole body of the House took the Covenant in St. Margaret's Church with uplifted hands, and, not content with this, despatched Owen O'Connelly, 297 298 THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT [CHAP, vi the discoverer of the 1641 plot, as their special emissary to propagate its tenets in Ulster. The City Companies, in a spirit of equal enthusiasm, at the same time sent over their own envoys to bring pressure to bear upon their tenants in Co. Londonderry. 1 In London and the eastern counties the Presbyterian form of worship took strong hold. Conversion was accomplished in this case not by statute but by the voluntary act of the converts. The King, in some alarm at the new developments, unequi- vocally condemned the Covenant as "a seditious and traitorous combination against him." * In Ireland the Lords Justices Borlase and Tichborne supported him to the extent of issuing a definite order forbidding the officers of the Ulster army to take the Covenant. As the taking of the Covenant was, before all else, a definite declaration of policy, it can be easily understood that these contrary instructions placed the Ulster leaders in a very awkward predicament. On January 2, 1644, Lord Montgomery, Sir James Montgomery, Sir Robert Stewart, Sir William Cole, Colonels Chichester, Hill and Audley Mervyn, and Robert Thornton, the Mayor of Derry, met at Belfast to decide upon their line of action. Sir William Stewart, who was away in England at the time, sent a message expressing his willingness to be bound by the decision of the majority. After lengthy deliberations, the assembled leaders finally resolved not to take the Covenant but, at the same time, evidently thought it wise to conceal this determination as far as possible, for in the report of the proceedings which they sent over to Parliament they contented themselves with expressing their readiness to continue the war against the rebels in Ulster " with the consent of the King and Parliament " an ambiguous declaration which left the situation very much where it was before. The undecided attitude of the Ulster leaders decided the Scottish Assembly to the adoption of more vigorous measures. Early in March, four perfervid apostles of the Covenant, by name James Hamilton, William Adair, Hugh Henderson and John Weir, arrived at Carrickfergus from Scotland. The presence of these four men, who had been specially selected for their powers of eloquence and their enthusiasm in the cause of the Covenant, had its immediate effect on the public mind 1 Carte, vol. i. p. 486. * Ibid. p. 487. 1644] CONVERSION OF THE LAGAN FORCE 299 in Ulster. On April 4 Monro himself and all his officers, with the exception of that unshakable Royalist, Major Dalziel, took the Covenant. Many of the " Old Scots " of Down and Antrim followed their example, and the mission then moved west to the attack of Londonderry and the Lagan Force. As was only to be expected, it did not meet with the same success beyond the Bann that had attended its efforts in the east, but none the less its achievements were remarkable. Derry, as the metropolis of the north- west, was the first place visited, and here quite a number of the inhabitants, headed by Sir Frederick Hamilton, took the Covenant, in spite of the violent opposition of Robert Thornton, the Mayor. At Raphoe, which was next visited, the whole of Sir Robert Stewart's regiment took the Covenant except the commander, who was away at the time in Dublin. Sir William Stewart was still in England, but in his absence his regiment, which was quartered at Letterkenny, followed the example of that of his brother. The greatest triumph of the mission, however, and the greatest tribute to the persuasive elo- quence of its members, was at Ramelton, where the whole of Audley Mervyn's regiment took the Covenant, in spite of the vehement protestations of its Colonel. 1 From Ramelton the mission then moved south to Enniskillen, being escorted on the journey by Colonel Saunderson and two troops of the Lagan Force. Like the other leaders of the Lagan Force, Sir William Cole was not to be won over at the moment ; but we are told that all his family took the Covenant, as did also his Lieutenant, Colonel Acheson. 2 Patrick Adair, on whom we have to rely for most of these particulars, and who was in Ireland either at the time of, or very shortly after, the tour of the four envoys, tells us that, on their return north, Audley Mervyn publicly took the Covenant at Strabane, his conversion being hailed by shouts of " Welcome, welcome, Colonel " from his men. He adds that a week later Sir Robert Stewart took the Covenant at Coleraine and Sir William Cole followed his example just before he sailed for England 1 Patrick Adair's Presbyterian Church in Ireland. 2 It is greatly to be doubted, in the light of subsequent events, whether Acheson actually did take the Covenant. Patrick Adair is not always reliable. 300 THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT [CHAP, vi from Carrickfergus. 1 It is to be feared, however, that Mr. Adair's enthusiasm has led him into error with regard to the action of these Lagan Force leaders. Carte posi- tively denies that Audley Mervyn took the Covenant, and his view is borne out by the fact that, soon after the mission had passed on its way through Tyrone, Ormonde nominated Mervyn Governor of Derry hi place of Sir Robert Stewart,* which would hardly have been the case had he recently taken the Covenant. We know, too, that Audley Mervyn's position as Governor of Derry subsequently proved extremely difficult on account of his avowed hostility to the Covenant. Most of the in- habitants were converts ; even Thornton, the Mayor, originally a most strenuous opponent, found it necessary in the end to conform to public opinion. To add to the difficulties of Audley Mervyn's position, we learn that Sir Frederick Hamilton, who had always been a candidate for the Governorship of Derry, took up his residence in the City and so undermined Audley Mervyn's influence that he was in the end forced to take the Covenant. It is quite clear, then, that Adair's story of the Strabane conversion belongs to the sphere of fiction. It is no less' clear that the story of Sir Robert Stewart's con- version is equally apocryphal, for on May 23 we find him among the Royalists or at any rate the undecided leaders who met at Belfast to consider what their future action in the matter of the Covenant was to be. Although the military leaders in Ulster showed a marked and perhaps not unnatural reluctance to making a definite declaration in the matter of the Covenant, there was no such hesitation on the part of the rank and file. By the spring of 1644 the only three towns in the north which had not yet yielded to the persuasive eloquence of the Scottish envoys were Coleraine, Lisburn and Belfast. Ormonde at once tried to fasten his hold upon these three towns. He prevailed upon Owen Roe to supply both Theophilus Jones at Lisburn and Sir James Mont- gomery at Belfast with powder for purposes of defence in case Monro became aggressive,' and he himself sent Montgomery 300 for the same purpose. He was wise 1 Cole was sent over on a special mission to represent to the Parliament the extreme hardships endured by the British forces in Ulster. 8 Carte, vol. i. p. 492. 3 Relation of Col. O'Neil. 1644] MONRO SEIZES BELFAST 301 enough, however, to recognise that persuasion is more desirable than strife, and Montgomery was at the same .time instructed, before assuming an openly defiant attitude, to try to win Monro over by other means. Acting on these instructions, Montgomery paid a visit to Carrick- fergus and used all the inducements with which he had been secretly armed in order to procure Monro's conversion. To the overtures of the royalist advocate the Scottish commander replied that he would willingly serve the King were it in his power to do so, but that, having been appointed by the Parliament, he had no option but to continue serving the Parliament. This declaration was shortly afterwards followed by more active measures. Monro had in April been appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Ulster Forces, and on the strength of this appoint- ment he resolved on a bold stroke. On May 23 Lord Montgomery, Sir James Montgomery, Lord Blayney, Sir Robert Stewart, Colonel Hill, Colonel Chichester, Sir George Rawdon, Colonel Matthews and Sir Theophilus Jones were assembled at Belfast to consider the difficult position in which they found themselves owing to the recent extension of Monro's command. While they were in the act of discussing matters, a scout arrived with the news that Monro was marching towards the town at the head of two regiments. Wild rumours of this sort were common to the country, and two horsemen were sent out to learn what truth there was in the rumour. They returned with the report that the whole story was a fabrication and that Monro was nowhere in sight. Re- assured by this news, the leaders resumed their delibera- tions, which were interrupted by the sudden appearance of Monro himself who, with his two regiments, had marched unopposed into the town where he had been joined by the two treacherous horsemen. Monro explained that his object was essentially pacific, but that in face of a recent proclamation issued by Sir James Montgomery and Colonel Chichester in which all who had taken the Covenant were denounced as traitors he did not feel that the lives of any were safe while so important a place remained in the hands of those who held such views. No attempt was made to place any restraint on the movements of the suspected officers, who dispersed in peace to their various stations, from 302 THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT [CHAP. vi which it seems tolerably clear that Monro's action was in the main dictated by the knowledge of the money and powder with which Montgomery had been recently fur- nished. The latter was relieved of his command and returned to Grey Abbey, Belfast being left in temporary charge of Colonel Hume. 1 Monro's vigorous action was not in the long run without its good effects, for shortly afterwards an amicable arrangement was arrived at by all the Ulster leaders, in accordance with which it was agreed that they should continue to work together against the Irish rebels, provided no action was taken which might be considered prejudicial to the interests of the King. With a view to putting the assurances of the Ulster leaders to a practical test, Monro, at the beginning of June, ordered a general concentration of the British forces on Armagh, for the purpose of an invasion of Leinster, there being no Irish army in Ulster at the time against which military operations might be attempted. Owen Roe was living at the time on the borders of Meath and West- meath. The Lagan Force and the majority of the " Old Scots " obeyed the summons, the total force mustered numbering, according to Carte, no less than 10,000 foot and 1,000 horse. These figures are clearly a gross exaggeration. Mulhollan who must have known within reasonable limits tells us that the total British force in Ulster at the time amounted to 7,000 foot and 700 horse, 1 and many of these as for instance the garrisons at Newry and Lisburn did not respond to Monro's summons. Nor is it to be supposed that during Monro's concen- tration the Ulster towns were left wholly without garri- sons. Carte's object, of course, is to discredit Monro by accentuating the magnitude of his preparations in com- parison with the barrenness of his performances. Monro, who had provisions with him for three weeks, made unopposed progress as far as Cavan, and from thence sent out foraging parties into Meath and Longford, which captured some cattle and killed a few country people. His provisions, however, rapidly became exhausted and at the end of the first week in July he prepared to return to the north. On July 12 he reached Newry and sent a summons to Colonel Matthews to open the gates so that 1 Account of surprisal of Belfast. 2 Warr of Ireland. 1644] CASTLEHAVEN'S COMMAND IN ULSTER 803 the army might march through the town. Matthews replied that there was an excellent road running outside the walls which would equally well answer Monro's purpose, and added that, after the recent experiences of Lord Montgomery and others at Belfast, he had no intention of letting Monro's army inside. In face of this defiance, Monro strode alone into the town and openly accused Matthews of mutiny in disobeying the orders of his Com- mander-in-Chief. Finding that this accusation made no impression, he ordered the troops inside to lay down their arms and dismiss. Their reply was to point their muskets at his head. Monro, though a poor general, was undoubtedly a very fearless man, but the situation was an impossible one, and he had no alternative but to withdraw, with the parting threat that he would storm the town and carry it by assault. On reflection, however, he thought better of this resolve, and the army continued its march by the outside road. 1 During the summer of 1644, and while the Cessation was still in force, the Supreme Council of Confederate Catholics gave unmistakable proof of its strong antagonism to the native Irish party by appointing Lord Castlehaven Commander-in-Chief of the Ulster army in place of Owen Roe. The surface excuse put forward to explain this extraordinary step was that Preston and Owen Roe hated one another so heartily that anything in the nature of co-ordination between the two was an impossibility.* In his new capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Ulster Irish, Castlehaven who, according to Aphorismical Dis- covery was granted 30,000 by the Supreme Council to defray the cost of his expedition J started for the north in August, a good month before the Cessation had expired, so as to be ready for active operations at the first legitimate moment. His own army, which was composed entirely of Leinster and Munster men, numbered some 5,000, and Owen Roe was invited by the Supreme Council to join him with the Ulster army, by this time reduced by lack of money, arms and food to 2,000. Owen Roe, whose position was clearly defined by the Supreme Council as being entirely subordinate to that of Castlehaven, sullenly 1 Carte, vol. i. p. 496. * Richard Bellings's Confederation and War. 3 Aphorismical Disc., p. 88. 21 304 THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT [CHAP, vi declined to act as second in command to a Munster man in his own province, and remained with his army in Cavan, while Castlehaven advanced alone into Co. Down. Owen Roe was ill in bed at the time, but there is no doubt that his unreasonable behaviour was dictated by resent- ment rather than by sickness. Castlehaven's first objective was Charlemont, where he occupied the few remaining weeks of the Cessation in constructing elaborate defence- works on the banks of the Blackwater. 1 While at Charle- mont his army was regularly supplied with provisions from Newry, Dundalk and Drogheda, all of which were in the hands of Ormonde. 2 In provisioning Castlehaven's army, Ormonde was doing no more than he had undertaken to do under the terms of the Cessation Agreement. By these terms, Ormonde and the Supreme Council had agreed that there should be a twelve months' cessation of hostilities in Ireland to enable the royalist English in Ireland, the Anglo-Irish and the native Irish to combine together against the parliamentary forces. Monro and his "New Scots " army in Ulster had not at first for various reasons been included among the parliamentary enemies of Charles's cause. Of these reasons the foremost was found in the hope which Ormonde continually entertained of winning the Ulster Commander-in-Chief over. It was not till the native Irish had shown very clearly that they did not intend going over to England to fight Charles's battles, that Ormonde realised that the only practical help he could give to his royal master was by attacking the parliamentary forces in Ulster. Monro's definite refusal to join the royalist party removed any remaining scruples which Ormonde might have entertained as to the pursuit of such a course. As soon as Ormonde had decided as to the course to which his duty pointed, it was agreed that, the moment the Cessation had expired, Castlehaven and Owen Roe should attack Monro in combination. Ormonde was too wise and too distrustful of his allies to allow his own garrisons out to swell the number of the expeditionary force, but he did the next best thing in his power by furnishing the invading army with pro- visions. Ormonde was, in fact, under a moral obligation to make all the reparation in his power for the recent 1 Aphorismical Disc., p. 88. a Relation of Col. O'Neil. 1644] INCHIQUIN CHANGES SIDES 805 outrageous behaviour in the south of his close associate Inchiquin, who, on August 3, had, without any provocation, raided the town of Cork and stripped the unfortunate merchants of everything they possessed. 1 The feeble excuse put forward by Inchiquin for this flagrant violation of the terms of a Cessation to which he himself had put his signature was that he had information to the effect that the Irish contemplated breaking the Cessation and that, in acting as he did, he was merely forestalling the other side. It is not to be supposed that this explanation deceived anybody. The truth was that Inchiquin had for some time past found the greatest difficulty in main- taining his army, and had been driven to the piratical raid on Cork as the only means of preventing his forces from dispersing. It is probable that, for some time past, Inchiquin had been working himself up into a frame of mind sufficiently rebellious to enable him to throw over his allegiance to the King and join the Parliament. He had made a special journey to England in the spring of the year to petition the King who was at Oxford at the time for the Presidency of Munster. Charles, who, for some unaccountable reason, was reserving the post for Weston, Earl of Portland, declined to grant the petition, and Inchiquin returned to Ireland a very embittered man. He took no public action, however, till after the battle of Marston Moor in July. Marston Moor was the first serious reverse the royalist troops had as yet sustained, and the complete overthrow of Prince Rupert on that disastrous occasion seems to have. decided Inchiquin to throw in his lot with the winning side ; for, almost immediately afterwards, he publicly declared himself on the side of the Parliament and made his change of sides the excuse for raiding the unfortunate Cork merchants. At the same time, to show that his conversion was not merely nominal, he wrote to Monro offering to co-operate with him in the north against Ormonde and the Supreme Council. Monro' s reply is not on record, but it is highly improbable that he would have had sufficient faith in Inchiquin to invite him up into Ulster at the moment when his late allies, Castlehaven and Owen Roe, were invading the province. In any 1 " A Particular Account of my Lord Inchiquin's Usage of the Inhabi- tants of Cork" (Confederation and War) ; Carte, vol. i. p. 612. 306 THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT [CHAP, vi event Inchiquin did not go north, but he gave satisfactory proof, in his own province, of his devotion to the parlia- mentary cause by falling upon his fellow-countrymen with a ruthless ferocity which finds no parallel in the entire history of the ten years' war. His only rival in brutality was Coote in the north. Inchiquin' s cruelty, however, was the more indefensible of the two, for, as head of the O'Briens, he was himself a representative of the old native Irish whom he so ruthlessly destroyed. Coote, on the other hand, belonged to the class of men who are called Irish when in England and English when in Ireland. He was of pure Anglo-Saxon blood, but he had been born in Ireland and had spent most of his life there. In September, as soon as the Cessation had expired, Castlehaven advanced to the attack of the British forces which had been concentrated at Dromore in expectation of some such move. Warning was received of his approach, and an express messenger was sent off to invoke the aid of the Lagan Force. Castlehaven had little military skill, but he had sufficient sense not to defer his attack till Stewart's men arrived on the scene. He attacked, in fact, with such promptitude that Monro in spite of his warning was completely taken by surprise. Captain Blair's troop of horse, which was doing outpost duty, was surprised and very badly cut about by the Irish horse, and the commander himself was taken prisoner. Sir George Rawdon, whom we now find for the first time on the parliamentary side, was the first of the British to recover from the surprise and to bring his troop of horse into action. He charged down upon the Irish horse and, in turn, put them to flight, but was unable to effect the rescue of Blair, who was carried off a prisoner. 1 The skirmish at Dromore was the tamest of endings to the 1644 campaign, considering the magnitude and im- portance of the two armies opposed to one another. Only a few of the cavalry were engaged, and the casualties on either side were inappreciable. On the following day the Lagan Force arrived, and Castlehaven at once withdrew to Charlemont, leisurely pursued by Monro. Neither commander showed any eagerness to come to close quarters. Monro was possibly 1 Relation of Col. O'Neil ; Warr of Ireland. 1644] OWEN ROE JOINS CASTLEHAVEN 807 wise in avoiding battle, for he had a surer means of reducing his opponent to subjection. He took up his quarters at Armagh, and by so doing was enabled to intercept all the supplies sent by Ormonde for the use of Castlehaven's army from Newry, Dundalk and Drogheda. For six weeks the two armies remained in their respective quarters, almost within sight of one another, and yet without attempting anything in the way of a general engagement. At the end of three weeks the stoppage of supplies, consequent upon Monro's position at Armagh, worked its effect, and Castlehaven resolved on a retirement to the south. News of his intention reached Owen Roe, who was ill in bed in Cavan. Indignation brought him promptly from his bed, and, getting his Ulster force together, he at once made his way to Charlemont, where he protested so vehemently against the proposed retirement of the Leinster army that it was postponed. 1 From that time on Owen Roe remained with Castlehaven at Charlemont. He was still too ill to take the field in person, but he gave Castlehaven the full benefit of his military experience and local knowledge. These friendly relations were, however, not long maintained, and were in the end broken off permanently by an unfortunate incident which fell out as follows : Monro was in the habit of sending out foraging parties in the direction of Charlemont, for the double purpose of increasing his own supplies and of reducing those of Castlehaven. In the course of one of these expeditions the foraging party found its way barred at the Blackwater ford by a detachment of Owen Roe's men. In spite of the opposition, the British managed to force their way across and to disperse the enemy. Several of the Irish were killed during the encounter, including Charles Hovedon and Art Oge O'Neil. The matter was a small one in itself, but it caused a per- manent break between Castlehaven and Owen Roe, for the latter accused Castlehaven's second in- command, Colonel Fennell, of cowardice and treachery in having watched the encounter from close by, where he rode at the head of a number of his own men, without making any attempt to render assistance.* A quarrel resulted, which was never subsequently healed, and 1 Richard Bellings's Confederation and War. gelation of Col. O'Neil. 808 THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT [CHAP, vi which extended beyond the person of Castlehaven to the whole body of the Supreme Council. By the middle of November the Leinster army was on the verge of starvation, and Castlehaven was forced to retire south by way of Monaghan and Cavan. The men, we are told, looked like ghosts, and many died of hunger during the retreat. 1 Castlehaven and Owen Roe each laid the blame of failure on the other, and they parted the reverse of friends. 1 Aphorismical Disc. CHAPTER VII THE OXFORD CONVENTION OF 1644 IN March 1644, while the Cessation was in full progress, a convention was held at Oxford under the Presidency of the King, with the idea, among other things, of finding some such solution of the Irish problem as would satisfy even if it did not reconcile all parties. In this Convention the Ulster Scots were represented by Sir William Stewart and Sir Francis Hamilton ; the native Irish by Lord Muskerry and Dermot O'Brien ; the Anglo-Irish gentry of the Pale by Mr. Nicholas Plunkett and Sir Robert Talbot; the Parliamentary Party by Sir Charles Coote and Captain Michael Jones, and the Administration by Sir Gerard Lowther, the Lord Chief Justice, and Judge Donellan. Two petitions, which had been carefully drawn up in advance, were presented to the King ; one by Lord Muskerry on behalf of the native Irish, and the other by the Ulster Scots' representatives, with a postscript added by Sir Charles Coote. The said postscript, which was of a most violent and extreme character, was personal and not official, and was repudiated in toto by the Ulster delegates, who denied that it represented the wishes of the majority of the British in Ulster, or even in Ireland. The Irish demands were just as extravagant and out- rageous in their way as Coote' s were in the opposite direction, and it became at once evident that there was no hope of arriving at any settlement which would meet the wishes of all parties. The hopelessness of the Irish demands lay in the fact that they were based on the flagrant misrepresentations which had been put forward in the first and second " Re- monstrances " of the Irish Roman Catholics. These compositions had originally been drawn up with a view 309 310 THE OXFORD CONVENTION OF 1644 [CHAP, vn to enlisting the sympathies of a far-away King with little knowledge of Ireland. Their mendacity was whole- hearted and thorough. The sixth section of the first " Remonstrance," e.g., made the astounding statement that " The Roman Catholics of this realm are not admitted to any dignity, place or office, either military or civil, spiritual or temporal " ; the eleventh section stated that " common justice and the rights and privileges of Parlia- ment are denied to all the natives of this realm." 1 Both these statements were utterly false. There had, in fact, been, at the time when the 1641 rising broke out, an actual majority of Roman Catholics in the Irish Parliament. We have seen Rory Maguire Member of Parliament for Enniskillen, Philip O'Reilly Member of Parliament for Cavan, Mulmore O'Reilly High Sheriff of the County, and Tirlough Oge Sheriff of Armagh. These few names are merely cited as instances of native Irish Members of Parliament and Government officials who have already figured in the pages of this volume ; they represent a mere fraction of the whole. At Oxford the King was surrounded by men with a thorough experience of Ireland, who were able to enlighten him effectually as to the fictitious nature of the majority of grievances complained of. In the light of this new know- ledge, Charles called for Lord Muskerry and drew his atten- tion to the flagrant untruth of many of the grievances set out in the petition and in particular to the untruth of the complaint that the natives were not admitted to the privileges of Parliament or of other lucrative offices. 2 Lord Muskerry had no reply to offer, and it was agreed by all parties that both the Irish and the British petitions should be withdrawn and remodelled. This was done, and the amended petitions were once more submitted to the King. The new Irish demands were, in the first instance, for an Act of Oblivion which should wipe out of the official memory all the incidents connected with the 1641 rising. To this, in its entirety, the British representatives objected, urging that from the benefits of any such Act those responsible for the massacres and the cruelties practised upon the British should be excluded and brought to justice. The Irish agreed, provided that all such British 1 Gilbert's Contemp. Hist., vol. i. pt. 2, p. 450, a Carte. 1644] NATURE OF THE IRISH DEMANDS 311 as had practised cruelties upon the Irish should be similarly served. It was pointed out to Lord Muskerry that this was a wholly unreasonable demand, inasmuch as the cruelties practised upon the British had been entirely unprovoked, whereas those practised upon the Irish had been in the nature of just retribution for atrocities already committed. No amount of argument or explanation, however, could get the Irish delegates to concede this elementary point, and finally the King, wearying of a debate in which no vestige of progress was being made in any direction, agreed in desperation to sanction any such Act of Oblivion as should be prepared and approved by the Lord-Lieutenant and Privy Council. It must be remembered that, in instructing Ormonde to agree to a twelve months' cessation of hostilities, the King had been mainly influenced by a desire to make use of the English royalist troops at the time serving in Ireland and if possible of some of the Irish too against the armies of the Parliament. Ormonde had sent some of the English troops over, but the 10,000 Irish that he had hoped for, and indeed been promised, had not mater- ialised. In the belief that this remissness might possibly be due, in some part, to the existence of supposed griev- ances, Charles had summoned the Oxford Convention with the idea of redressing all such legitimate grievances as kept the Irish disloyal and discontented. If this were done, it was not unreasonable to hope that the Irish troops, which he had been promised as one of the Cessation conditions, would be sent over. As a mere matter of self-interest, then, it was clearly to Charles's advantage to make every possible concession to the demands of the Irish. Only by so doing could he hope to get his Irish troops to help him. The extreme unreasonableness, however, of the demands made, and the fictions on which they were for the most part based, left Charles faced with an all but impossible task. It is no easy matter to cancel that which does not exist, but Charles made the effort. " In the matter of the Penal Laws," he told the delegates, " as these have never been exercised with any rigour, so, if his recusant subjects should, by returning to their duty and loyalty, merit his favour and protection, they should not for the future have cause to complain that less moderation was used to them than had been in the 312 THE OXFORD CONVENTION OF 1644 [CHAP, vii most favourable times of Queen Elizabeth or King James, provided they lived quietly and peaceably according to their allegiance ; and such of them as manifested their duty and allegiance to His Majesty should receive such marks of his favour in offices and places of trust as should plainly show his good acceptance and regard of them." He added that " he knew of no incapacity of natives to purchase either lands or offices, but if there were such he would willingly consent when all other matters had been concluded to remove it, and also to the erection of an Inns of Court University and free schools." 1 With these and other cryptic promises of a similar character, the delegates returned to Ireland. The Oxford Convention of 1644, like many other similar Conventions in years to come, had arrived at no satisfactory solution of the difficulties in Ireland. At the King's suggestion its members reassembled in Dublin under the Presidency of Ormonde, but with no better success than before, and the Lord-Lieutenant had to report failure. On receipt of this report the King wrote to Ormonde that, in view of the extreme weakness of the British in Ireland, and of the consequent impossibility of these maintaining themselves in a war against the Irish without material help from England, which he was not in a position to send, it was desirable to make very full concessions in order to secure a permanent peace in continuation of the Cessation. He therefore authorised the Lord-Lieutenant to concede practically any terms that might seem necessary, provided there was no relaxation of the Penal Laws or of Poyning's Act. It is of interest to note that, in arriving at this decision, the King appears to have entirely ignored the possibility of the British in Ireland receiving any help from the Parliamentary Party, nor in fact had any such help been possible prior to the battle of Marston Moor. In the preceding year the Parliament had definitely affirmed that " If 500 could save Ireland it could not be spared, and further, that they had not time so much as to step over the threshold for Ireland." ! In 1644, however, such a possibility was far less remote. As far as Ulster was concerned, the King's hopes of a continuation of peace were realised, for the year 1645 was barren of fighting. The mental attitude of the Ulster > Carte, vol. i. p. 507. 8 Ibid. p. 427. 1645] THE POLITICS OF THE LAGAN FORCE 313 garrisons during this year was peculiar and interesting. The atrocities of three years before were still sufficiently recent to fill all alike with a burning hatred of the natives and with a corresponding desire to carry on a war of devastation against them ; but whether they did so under the banner of King or Parliament was to them a matter of complete indif- ference. They were willing to serve any British master who was in a position to pay for their services. It was in the minds of none that the banner under which they served could ever prove more than a mere formal badge of alle- giance. So far, the British Royalists and the British Parliamentarians in Ulster, though constantly intriguing to secure the possession of strongholds which were in the hands of the other party, had too many interests in common to be serious enemies. Another four years were to elapse before British fought with British in Ireland. The acute question in army circles in the year 1645 was the question of food, pay and clothing, and so long as these were forth- coming it seemed to matter little what temporary label was attached to the recipients. It appears to be tolerably certain that the Lagan Force had been induced to take to the Covenant less by the eloquence of the members of the mission than by the knowledge that Monro had been pro- mised a very substantial grant of money and clothing from Scotland. When, however, it was found that Monro retained all these good things for the use of the troops under his immediate eye, and that none of them found their way west of the Bann, there was a general tendency among the members of the Lagan Force to revert to their former allegiance to the King. Sir Robert Stewart, their popular leader, was still immovably royalistic, and the real sympathies of many of the rank and file were in the same direction. They were willing to become Parliamen- tarians if the Parliament paid them and the King did not, but if neither party paid them they preferred to be Royalists. A careful consideration of the circumstances convinced the officers of the Lagan Force that it would be desirable to make this delicate position, and the- possibilities that lay behind it, quite clear to the parliamentary executive. They accordingly drew up a suitable memorandum (which was also very little removed from an ultimatum) which made it quite clear that the Parliament must pay them if they wished to retain their services. This memorandum was 814 THE OXFORD CONVENTION OF 1644 [CHAP, vn duly despatched to the Parliament in London, and in time produced its effect, but for a considerable period no reply of a suitable nature was received, and Ormonde took ad- vantage of the situation in order to try, by every known artifice, to win over the Lagan Force to his party. He was not in a position, however, to offer them the sub- stantial argument of pay, and in the absence of this they declared their intention of retaining their liberty of action as an independent force. Ormonde's disappoint- ment at failing to win over this redoubtable corps was acute, as it well might be, for Carte tells us that at this time the Lagan Force " was certainly the best in the whole kingdom." l The memorandum of the Lagan Force was not produc- tive of any immediate response from the Parliament, but it set that august body thinking, and taken in conjunction with Ormonde's overtures for the capture of the Stewarts and their men it seemed to point to the conclusion that it was no longer safe to defer sending a certain amount of money to Ulster. Any doubts on the subject which might have remained in their minds were finally removed by a very definite and disturbing display of independence on the part of the Lagan Force itself. The incident was a small one, but it showed with sufficient clearness which way the wind was blowing. Sir Charles Coote had recently been appointed Governor of Connaught, and, on the strength of this ap- pointment, he issued an order to the Lagan Force to place itself under his command for the purpose of an attack on the town of Sligo, which he contemplated making in con- junction with Sir Francis Hamilton of Keilagh. The leaders of the Lagan Force, who saw no reason to recognise the authority of the Connaught President, refused to move in the matter unless their arrears of pay were first forth- coming. This, at the moment, was an impossibility, and, as the expedition was impossible without the Lagan Force, a deadlock ensued. Finally, however, Sir Robert Stewart yielded to a solemn undertaking on the part of the parlia- mentary representatives that the requirements of the Force would be met, and on June 16, 1645, the three regiments commanded by the two Stewarts and Colonel Saunderson, marched to Augher, which had been fixed upon as the rendezvous of the forces destined for Connaught. Coote, 1 Parte, vol. i. p. 532. 1645] DEFEAT OF TAAFE AT SLIGO 315 Hamilton and the three Lagan Force leaders then advanced upon Sligo, which was easily captured, and in which Stewart left Colonel Saunderson's regiment as a garrison. The rest of the force, driving before them a large herd of Connaught cattle, returned to Newtownstewart, where Stewart temporarily dismissed his men to their homes. Coote and Hamilton continued their advance into the heart of Connaught, capturing all the Castles and strong- holds as they went. They were too weak, however, effec- tively to garrison the places they captured. Clanricarde complained bitterly to Ormonde of Coote' s action in invading Connaught, which he claimed was un- constitutional inasmuch as it had not been authorised by the Lord-Lieutenant, and which had, in addition, robbed him of many of his best cattle. Ormonde was little less indignant than Clanricarde, and, in order to mark his dis- approval, he wrote authorising Taafe to raise a local army and drive the invaders out of Connaught. This letter marks the beginning of a new epoch in the history of the country, for it was the first time that Or- monde or indeed any other Lord-Lieutenant, had issued an authority to the native Irish to attack the British. Lord Taafe, with the assistance of Clanricarde and the titular Bishop of Tuam, got together a sufficient army of Munster and Connaught men, which at first met with uninterrupted success. It commenced well by capturing Tulske from Captain Ormsby on August 13. All the other Castles in Connaught captured and occupied by Coote were then successfully recaptured, till the town of Sligo was reached. Here the victorious career of Taafe' s army was checked, for Colonel Saunderson's regiment successfully resisted all attempts at capturing the town. Taafe and his army then sat down outside the walls, and the siege continued till October 26, when Sir Francis Hamilton and Colonel Richard Coote came to its relief. On seeing the approach of the relief column, Saunderson sallied out from the town and in co-operation with Coote and Hamilton completely routed the besieging army. All Taafe' s colours and drums were lost ; 48 officers were taken prisoner, 1 and large quantities of cattle belonging to the Irish army were captured. The most important incident, however, in 1 Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 187 ; Carte, vol. i. p. 535; Hibernia Angli- cana. 316 THE OXFORD CONVENTION OF 1644 [CHAP, vn connection with the relief of Sligo was the death of the titular Bishop of Tuam, who was killed by a chance bullet while in full retreat. The importance of his death lay in the fact that on his body was found the text of a Treaty between the King and the Supreme Council of Confederate Catholics, signed by the Earl of Glamorgan on behalf of Charles, the subject matter of which caused a very considerable stir in both English and Irish political circles. The Parliament did not go back on its undertaking to deal promptly with the question of the arrears of pay due to the Lagan Force. At the beginning of October shortly before the Sligo victory 10,000 and a quantity of cloth and provisions were sent over for distribution among the British forces in the north. With a clear recollection of the way in which Monro had retained all the money sent from Scotland for the use of his own troops, the Parliament sent the new supplies over in charge of a committee com- posed of Sir Robert King, Colonel Beal, and Mr. Arthur Annesley, whose discretion in the matter of distribution as well as in certain other matters was final and absolute. The committee was well aware of Ormonde's endeavours to secure the co-operation of the Lagan Force, and, recog- nising that the loss of this corps' services would be an irreparable blow to the interests of the Parliament in the north, took good care that a fair proportion of the 10,000 was allotted to the troops on the west side of the Foyle. It is of interest to note that this grant amounting to no more than eight months' pay was the only payment from any source which was destined to find its way into the pockets of the Lagan Force during the entire nine years that it continued on active service. 1 As a propitiatory offering the effect of the grant was a good deal marred by the action of the committee in deposing Audley Mervyn from the Governorship of Derry a post which he had now held for little more than a year. This ill-judged and short-sighted act was mainly brought about by the active hostility of Sir Frederick Hamilton, who had for some years coveted the Governorship for himself, and who now sought to attain his ambition by enlarging on Audley Mervyn' s concealed royalist tendencies. 8 Audley Mervyn was re- moved, but Hamilton missed his mark, for the new 1 Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 44. * Carte, vol, i. p. 533. 1645] COL. MERVYN AND LORD CONWAY DEPOSED 317 Governor selected by the committee was Lord Folliott, hitherto associated with the defence of Ballyshannon. The action of the committee in removing Audley Mervyn caused much dissatisfaction among the members of the Lagan Force with whom the late Governor was immensely popular, but it caused nothing approaching the stir which was aroused by the simultaneous removal of Lord Conway from the command of his own regiment at Lisburn. Con- way was a commander of very mediocre ability. His defeat by the Scots at Newburn on the Tyne had been an ignominious affair which reflected littlecred it on his generalship. All the successes of his regiment in Ulster had been achieved under the leadership either of Colonel Conway (Lord Con way's son), Sir George Rawdon or Sir Theophilus Jones. At the same time, the regiment was composed very largely of Lord Con way's own tenants from the neighbourhood of Lisburn, whose loyalty very deeply resented the action of the committee in deposing him. Lord Blayney, who was nominated in his place, had a most unfavourable reception. The members of the regiment elected Jones as their Colonel, and for a time a mutiny was imminent. In the end the committee though refusing to reinstate Lord Conway effected a compromise by nominating Colonel Conway as the successor to his father in the command of the Lisburn regiment. CHAPTER VIII GLAMORGAN'S MISSION TO IRELAND THE year 1645 though uninteresting from the military point of view was remarkable for the arrival in Ireland of two men whose appearance on the scene was destined to cause considerable political commotion, and finally to bring about an entire readjustment of all party boundaries. After the failure of the Oxford Convention of 1644, a second attempt to arrive at an amicable understanding had been made by the King's desire in Dublin, but had met with no better success. This second failure made it clear to the King that it was hopeless to attempt to arrive at any settlement which was in the nature of a com- promise. He accordingly wrote to Ormonde instructing him to abandon all attempts at bargaining, and to make peace on any terms he could. It is doubtful whether Ormonde could have carried out these instructions, even had he been so inclined. Only a very small proportion of the British military forces in Ireland admitted his right to command them. Monro was professedly parlia- mentarian. Inchiquin in the south, embittered by his loss of the Presidency of Munster, was on the eve of declaring for the Parliament, and was certainly not in a mood to be controlled by Ormonde, while the Lagan Force refused to accept orders from anyone who did not establish the right to command by providing pay. This last was beyond Ormonde's power. All that he was in a position to do was to conclude a peace which would bind the royalist British in Ireland not to molest the Irish further, and this was a form of peace which would have had little or no value for the Supreme Council and those they represented. The King, who only half understood the situation in Ireland, cared little at the moment about any of these things so long as he could 318 1645] GLAMORGAN'S APPOINTMENT 319 get troops to fight his battles for him, and he exhibited no little impatience at Ormonde's failure, which he attri- buted with some measure of truth to the fact that the Lord-Lieutenant was a Protestant. There can be little doubt though the point is not established by documentary evidence that, during the Oxford Convention, the King had secretly consulted the Roman Catholic delegates from Ireland as to the best course which he could adopt in order to induce the Supreme Council to send him over the 10,000 troops which they had originally undertaken to send, and of which he was in such desperate need. It is also quite clear that, in the solution put forward by the Roman Catholic delegates, the Protestant Lord- Lieutenant played no part, for Charles at once began to cast about for some representative who would more appropriately answer the requirements of the Irish. His choice fell on Edward Somerset, Lord Herbert, a zealous Catholic and the eldest son of the Marquis of Worcester. It is doubtful whether any better selection could have been made in all the circumstances. Herbert seems to have been a man of very exceptional character; his devotion and unshakable loyalty to his royal master some- times under very trying circumstances was so remarkable as to stamp him as a man whose constancy was altogether out of the common. His mental attainments in many varied directions were of a high order, and he had an attractive and lovable personality. As a military leader he had at no time proved a success, though he and his father had ungrudgingly given all they had to give in the service of the King. That Herbert was selected as the King's emissary to Ireland, even while Ormonde was still negotiating on similar lines, is made tolerably certain by Herbert's magnanimous admission made many years later, when the terms of the extraordinary patent granted him by Charles I were discussed in the House of Lords. Herbert frankly admitted, on that occasion, that all the honours and privileges conferred on him had been " in consideration of services to be performed," and, as he had failed to perform those services, he waived his right to any consider- ation in respect of them. The patent was accordingly cancelled, as would indeed have been necessary in any case, for it conferred on Herbert greater honours and 22 320 GLAMORGAN'S MISSION TO IRELAND [CHAP, vm powers than have ever been conferred on any subject in any country. He was created Earl of Glamorgan, and in spite of his failures in the field was made General- issimo of all the British forces in England, Ireland or France (no doubt in order to facilitate the operation of sending over Irish troops). He was made an Admiral of the Fleet and a Knight of the Garter ; he was em- powered to ennoble anyone whom he wished up to the rank of Marquis, and to mortgage the Crown Lands for any amount he might think proper. His eldest son was guaranteed the Dukedom of Somerset and the hand of the Princess Elizabeth, with a dowry of 300, 000. 1 The document setting out these astonishing terms was signed by Charles on the appropriate date of April 1, 1644. It bears evidence on its surface of the desperate extremities to which the King was at that moment driven by the storm-clouds gathering on the horizon. The Scots had by this time definitely joined the Parliament against the King, and behind both, and far more menacing than either, loomed the grim shadow of the Independent Party, with Oliver Cromwell at its head. It is probable that in return for the semi-royal state conferred upon him it was hoped that Glamorgan as we may now call him would succeed in obtaining armed assistance for Charles, not only from Ireland, but from the Roman Catholics of France and Spain as well. In the matter of Ireland, it is quite clear that the King, in his desperation, was prepared to go to any lengths provided he could get men and money in return. Ormonde, as a Protestant, was not prepared to go to these lengths, and Glamorgan was accordingly substituted. " If upon necessity," the King wrote in his final instructions to Glamorgan on January 2, 1645, " anything has to be condescended unto, and yet the Lord Marquis not willing to be seen therein, or not fit for us at present publicly to own, do you endeavour to supply the same." Charles as has already been said signed the original patent on April 1, 1644. The royal fortunes from that time had begun to improve, and for the next few months appeared so favourable that Glamorgan's mission to Ireland was postponed, in the hopes that in the meanwhile Ormonde might be able to arrange some peace which would appear 1 Collins's Peerage, 1779, vol. i. p. 206. 1645] THE KING'S INTRIGUES WITH THE IRISH 321 less criminally insane in the public eye. This policy was practically forced upon the King by the intensity of public feeling. The royal negotiations with the Irish rebels (as they were still called) were fully known in England, and the knowledge had aroused a general feeling of disgust. The English mind, in its then state, was unable to discriminate between the blood-thirsty assassins who had been guilty of unprovoked massacres in 1641 and the Supreme Council of Confederate Catholics which was the representative Irish body in 1644. As a matter of fact there was an immeasurable gulf between the two. The Supreme Council, and those they represented, were not rebels, either technically or in practice, and were, in point of fact, little less hostile to those responsible for the 1641 massacres than were the English or the Scots. The distinction, however, was too subtle for the public mind of the moment, and both alike were placarded as rebels and execrated as perpetrators of anti-British massacres. The discovery of Charles's negotiation with these supposed assassins did more than any of his pre-war tyrannies and impositions to alienate the sympathies of his subjects. Hundreds of his officers threw up their commissions, and his former adherents among the lower orders began to desert his standard in flocks. Prince Rupert's astonishing successes in the field for the moment filled the King with the hope that he might yet win through to victory without the help of the Irish, and, in the hope of escaping the odium which attached to the Irish alliance, Glamorgan's mission was temporarily abandoned. Then in July came Marston Moor with the overwhelming defeat of the hitherto invincible Rupert. Even in the face of this disaster the King did not entirely despair. It was the first reverse that his nephew had so far sustained, and it was not unreasonable to hope that it might be the last. For eight months more Glamorgan remained in England. In March 1645 he made an attempt to reach Ireland, but contrary gales drove him back, and he returned to Skipton Castle, where he remained for three months ; from which it might be inferred that Charles saw the finger of God in the opposing gales and bowed to the omen. In June, however, the fatal battle of Naseby made it plain to the King that nothing could save him but the intervention of the Roman Catholics, and Glamor- 322 GLAMORGAN'S MISSION TO IRELAND [CHAP, vm gan was ordered to sail at once for Ireland, where he landed at the end of the month. In the same month in which Glamorgan first attempted to reach Ireland, Richard Bellings, Vice-President of the Supreme Council of Confederate Catholics, set out from Ireland for Rome in an endeavour to bring back with him a Papal Nuncio who should be armed with sufficient religious powers to consolidate into one homogeneous body all the contending Roman Catholic parties in Ireland. The person selected for this delicate undertaking was one Giovanni Rinuccini, who we are given to understand had little liking for the task assigned him, and made many endeavours to exchange his allotted mission for one to France, but without success. Rinuccini, who brought with him 60, 000, l of which Cardinal Mazarin had supplied no less than half, arrived in Ireland on October 23, 1645, exactly four years to a day after the outbreak of the rising. His arrival might have resulted in a simplification of the situation but for the fact that Glamorgan, acting on his instructions, had in the meanwhile concluded a peace with the Supreme Council by the terms of which the Irish Roman Catholics in consideration of supplying the King with an army of 10,000 were to be granted every conceivable privilege to which their imagination could aspire. 8 Most unfor- tunately for Charles and his projects, the Archbishop of Tuam had this document in his pocket when a chance bullet laid him low outside the walls of Sligo. Coote as in duty bound forwarded the paper to his masters in the English Parliament, who indignantly confronted the King with the contents. It is difficult to over-estimate the sensation which such an announcement would arouse in the middle of the seventeenth century. The Cavalier nobles who supported Charles's cause with their money and the lives of themselves and their retainers were for the most part men of indeter- minate religious views, but the middle and lower classes of England were, at the moment, in the grip of an anti- Catholic frenzy before which the Glamorgan Treaty would have appeared as an unspeakable abomination. In Ireland the effect of the exposure would have been still worse : for even the most ardent Royalists, such as Lord 1 Friar O'Mellan. * Confederation and War, vol. v. p. 67. 1645] CHARLES REPUDIATES GLAMORGAN 323 Conway, Sir Robert Stewart and Theophilus Jones were, before all else, rigid Protestants, whose religious scruples, no less than their material interests, would have been sacrificed by the terms of the Glamorgan Treaty. In the face of a threatened exposure, which would have alienated half his supporters, Charles, without hesitation, followed the line of least resistance, and coolly repudiated the unfortunate Glamorgan and all the pledges he had given under his extraordinary commission. Lord Digby was sent over to Ireland to announce, on the King's behalf, that his envoy had grievously misinterpreted his instructions, and, at Digby' s instigation, Glamorgan was arrested and imprisoned on December 26. Six days prior to his arrest, however, Glamorgan, still full of zeal for his religion and his King, and with no premonition of the back-handed blow which he was about to receive from the latter, had concluded a second treaty with Rinuccini which went even further if possible than the first. In his eagerness to disavow any responsibility for this second treaty, Charles actually went so far as to declare that Glamorgan had assumed his title without authority, and had forged the commission which empowered him to act in the King's name. " He is no peer of this realm," Charles informed the world, " notwithstanding he so styles himself, and hath treated with the rebels of Ireland by the name of Earl of Glamorgan, which is as vainly taken upon him as his pretended warrant, if such there be, was surreptitiously gotten." In private correspondence, however, the King continued to address his envoy affec- tionately as Glamorgan, pleading the force of circum- stances as an excuse for his assumed attitude. Glamorgan was only kept in prison a month. After his release he ceased to play any important part in Irish politics. He came more and more under the influence of Rinuccini, who did with him as he would ; but he had no follow- ing of his own and he gradually disappeared from public view. At the end of 1646 he succeeded to the title of Marquis of Worcester, upon the death of his father, and shortly afterwards he left Ireland for France. CHAPTER IX OWEN ROE'S RUPTURE WITH THE SUPREME COUNCIL BY the spring of 1646 Owen Roe's men had made them- selves astonishingly unpopular in the counties of Meath, Westmeath and Longford. Driven out of Ulster by the desolation of their own province, and furnished with no funds by the executive body at Kilkenny, they had established themselves in the northern part of Leinster, where they ravaged the country and the country people as pitilessly as any of the old bonachts in the days of Hugh, Earl of Tyrone. "No Tartars," the Nuncio wrote to thex Pope, " ever committed worse ravages than these soldiers of Owen Roe did." 1 The victims of these ravages were not, as might be supposed, the intruding foreign colonists, but the native Irish whose cause Owen Roe was by way of championing, and these complained so bitterly to the Supreme Council of the miseries inflicted on them that, at one time, that distinguished body actually threatened to take up arms against Owen Roe in conjunc- tion with the British. 8 It is quite clear that Owen Roe himself was fully alive to, and deeply ashamed of, the outrages committed by his men, for, in addressing them afterwards, before the battle of Benburb, he exhorted them, by fighting staunchly, to make the only reparation in their power for " the many extortions you committed in Leinster, with the curses of poor and widows which cried against you before God Almighty." J While the Supreme Council was deliberating what steps they should take in the matter, the Nuncio came forward with the suggestion that, in view of Castlehaven's poor display two years before, they should once more give Owen Roe a chance, and appoint him Commander- in-Chief in Ulster, a step which, he pointed out, would have i Rinuccini's Memoirs, fol. 1189. * Carte, vol.i. p. 676. 3 Aphoriumwal Disc., p. 112. 324 1646] OWEN ROE REINSTATED IN COMMAND 325 the double effect of propitiating Owen Roe and of relieving Leinster of his piratical army. This suggestion was agreed to. Owen Roe was appointed Captain- General of all the Irish forces in Ulster, and was supplied with such funds and provisions as, it was hoped, would not only save him from the necessity of plundering his own fellow-country- men, but would also put him in a position to undertake an offensive against the British troops in the north. Nothing could have been more in accordance with Owen Roe's own wishes. He was now once more in good health and burning with anxiety to atone for his previous reverses. In accordance with one of the stipulations of the Supreme Council, Owen Roe's first step was to withdraw his army into Cavan, which was within his legitimate jurisdiction. Here he spent seven weeks in utilising the funds which had been placed at his disposal in getting together an army of sufficient strength for the undertaking he had in con- templation, and in subjecting his new recruits to a rigorous and necessary drill. At the beginning of June Owen Roe determined that his army was fit for active service, and he advanced as far as Glasslough. On receipt of this news Monro moved out of Carrickfergus with his " New Scots " army, and called on the local commanders to join him with their territorial forces. To this appeal in view of the fact that the invading force was a native Irish one Royalists as well as Parliamentarians responded, and the combined army made a forced march to Armagh, where Owen Roe was falsely reported to be encamped. A messenger was at the same time despatched to Monro' s nephew, Sir George Monro, who was at Coleraine, bidding him make his way to Armagh without delay, and there join the Carrickfergus army with all the forces he could raise. Another messenger was sent to Sir Robert Stewart ordering him to march the Lagan Force into Connaught with a view to making a diversion in that direction. Monro marched his army hard throughout the day and the greater part of the night of June 4, but on his arrival at Armagh at midnight on the 4th he learned that Owen Roe had not yet crossed the Blackwater and was encamped at Benburb. There could be no doubt that Monro' s proper course, in the altered circumstances, would have been to have marched his army north again till he had 326 ROE'S RUPTURE WITH THE COUNCIL [CHAP, ix formed a junction with his nephew, and then for the combined forces to have attacked Owen Roe. Instead of so doing, however, he sent a messenger to Sir George instructing him to meet him at Benburb instead of at Armagh, and, in order to prevent Owen Roe from getting between him and his expected reinforcements, he com- menced a second forced march to Benburb at daybreak on the 5th, without giving his troops any time for rest or sleep. Monro marched all day and arrived in the evening at Benburb, where he found the bridges and ford in the possession of the enemy, and so strongly held that he determined to march round by way of Kinard. This he was able to accomplish without opposition. On reaching the far side of the river, Monro contrary to the advice of all his officers, who urged him to give his army time to rest determined to attack forthwith. He made the fatal mistake of despising his enemies, whose fighting capacity he greatly underrated on account of the poor show that they had made two years before under Castle- haven. He either overlooked, or refused to acknowledge, the fact that Owen Roe in spite of his previous failures was an extremely capable General whom no opposing commander could afford to treat other than seriously. The battle began at six p.m. Owen Roe had advanced his army along the river banks to a hill about a mile from Benburb, on the slopes of which he awaited Monro' s attack. While Monro was engaged in crossing the river, Owen Roe addressed an impassioned harangue to his men, in which he exhorted them to fight bravely and so make the only amends in their power for the outrages they had been guilty of in Leinster. The appeal was not in vain, and resulted in the greatest national victory in the history of Ireland. Owen Roe, according to all accounts, had under him 5,000 foot and twelve troops of horse. Monro' s numbers are less easy to arrive at with accuracy, but according to the most reliable sources he had 3,400 foot and eleven troops of horse, the latter being under the command of the young Lord Montgomery, and either four or six field- pieces under the command of Lord Blayney. A dis- charge of the field-pieces opened the battle, but these did little, if any, execution, as they were badly handled and all the shots fell wide. For two hours the battle was 1646] BATTLE OF BENBURB 327 of a more or less passive character, both sides being equally reluctant to attack. About eight p.m. Monro descried a body of troops approaching from the north, which at first he took to be Sir George Monro' s Coleraine force. On closer view, however, he found that it was Brian Oge O' Neil's detachment, which had been sent to intercept Sir George, but which had been brought back by the sound of the guns. Monro at once ordered Mont- gomery to charge the new-comers with his horse. The charge proved a miserable failure : either it was badly led or not delivered with sufficient vigour, for Mont- gomery himself was almost at once taken prisoner, and his men, on seeing the loss of their leader, turned and broke, throwing their own infantry into confusion. Owen Roe took instant advantage of the opportunity thus offered to bring up his reserves and hurl them against the British force before the men could regain their order. The result surpassed expectations. Worn out with cease- less marching, Monro' s men proved quite unable to rally, and a complete rout of his whole army followed. The British field-pieces were all captured, and Lord Blayney, their commander, who refused quarter, was killed, gallantly defending them to the last. Sir James Montgomery's regiment was the only one which withdrew in anything approaching good order. Colonel Conway, who com- manded the Lisburn force, managed to reach Newry with some forty of his regiment. Monro himself lost his wig in the scrimmage and fled without it to Lisburn. Everything in the way of baggage, and provisions for two months, fell into the victors' hands. As to the number killed accounts differ very materially. Monro himself claimed that between five and six hundred only had been killed, as the Irish preferred plunder to pursuit, and the majority of his men had therefore been able to get safely across the river. This story must be taken as a natural endeavour on the part of a defeated General to minimise the losses due to his defective generalship. Mulhollan places the number of killed at between eighteen and nineteen hundred, and O'Mellan at 3,548. Carte, who wrote sixty years after the event, fixes the number of killed at 3,243, which was the figure arrived at by Owen Roe himself. His secretary and biographer, however, is more generous, and in the Aphorismical Discovery credits him with 4,500 328 ROE'S RUPTURE WITH THE COUNCIL [CHAP, ix slain, which we have reason to believe was more than the total number Monro had with him in the field. It seems tolerably clear, from a comparison of various accounts, that not less than 3,000 were killed, for Monro was quite incapacitated from taking the field for some time to come. 1 The Lagan Force had got no farther on its way to Connaught than Augher when Sir Robert Stewart learned of the disaster at Benburb, and, as there was no object in his continuing his march, he at once returned to his own district. Owen Roe's victory at Benburb was a well-deserved triumph, but he marred the effect of it by his culpable inaction after the battle. If the numbers that he claimed to have killed were not grossly exaggerated, the British forces in north-east Ulster were practically annihilated, or at any rate so severely shaken as to be incapable of united action for some time to come. Owen Roe himself estimated that he had at his disposal an army of 10,000 men, 1 well drilled and equipped, and full of confidence after their recent triumph over Monro' s much-dreaded army, to support which he had the two months' provisions that he claimed and no doubt with justice to have captured at Benburb. The Lagan Force was the only integral body left to dispute with him the supremacy of Ulster, and there was little probability that these would have left their own district for the purpose of interfering with his operations in the north-east had he promptly followed up his victory. All that Owen Roe did, however, after his victory was to send Rory Maguire and Phelim McToole into the Killeleagh district, Co. Down, where they pillaged the country and murdered a number of British inhabitants. Owen Roe himself, with the rest of his army, moved to Tandaragee, where he stayed four days, and then with- drew south into Leinster, his men, according to Carte, committing " horrible depredations on the way " ' the moment they had crossed their own boundary. Richard Bellings, in his history of the times, says that these depre- dations were at the expense of the people of Meath, West- meath and Longford, and were the cause of a permanent 1 A Relation of the Fight at Benburb; Contemp. Hist. ; Warr of Ireland; Aphorismical Disc. 1 Owen Roe to Daniel O'Neil, August 1646. a Carte, vol.4, p. 577. 1646] OWEN ROE SUMMONED BY THE NUNCIO 329 hatred between the men of Owen Roe's army and Preston's men, whose wives and families had, in many cases, been the victims of the Ulster army's outrages. 1 The indignation of the Supreme Council at Owen Roe's failure to pursue his advantage expressed itself in very plain terms. Emer McMahon, Bishop of Clogher, who was at Kilkenny at the time and who was himself a can- didate for the command of the Ulster army, gave it as his opinion that the opportunity had been unique, and that Owen Roe, had he so willed, could have overrun Ulster ; and, acting on the Bishop's semi-expert advice, the Supreme Council wrote to Owen Roe severely repri- manding him for his negligence or indolence, as the case might be, in not having followed up his advantage. It so happened, as matters had fallen out, that the approval or censure of the Supreme Council was at the moment a matter of no concern whatever to Owen Roe, for he had already resolved upon a definite rupture with that august body. It was not till later that the real reason for Owen Roe's failure to penetrate farther into Ulster became known. It was, in point of fact, due to an urgent summons which he had received from Rinuccini, who implored him to bring his victorious army south for the purpose of intimidating the Supreme Council into acquiescence with the Nuncio's latest schemes. The latter had recently acquired large sums of money from the Spanish Agent, Diego de la Torre, and, in sending his congratulations to Owen Roe at Tandaragee, he promised him 9,000 out of these moneys if he would hurry his army south in time to prevent the consummation of a new peace which the Supreme Council was on the point of concluding with Ormonde.* The offer was more than Owen Roe could resist, and, turning his back on Ulster and the possibility of further triumphs, he hurried south. The original trouble between Owen Roe and the Supreme Council had arisen over the fact that the latter body had arranged a peace with Ormonde prior to the battle of Ben- burb, the issue of which came as a surprise to all parties. In the face of Owen Roe's brilliant victory, it seemed to Rinuccini little short of scandalous that the Supreme Council should agree to a peace the terms of which fell 1 Confederation and War; Ormonde to Richard Sellings, August 10, 1646. Carte, vol. i. p. 577. 330 ROE'S RUPTURE WITH THE COUNCIL [CHAP, ix very far short of those conceded by the Glamorgan Treaty before the Irish victory. The attitude of the Nuncio, and of those who, like Owen Roe, supported him, is easily understandable. The moment of victory, they argued, was the moment in which to dictate terms rather than to accept those formulated by others. The terms of the Glamorgan Treaty, or a continuation of the war, was in effect their ultimatum. An assembly of such Roman Catholic clergy and influential leaders as were in sympathy with the Nuncio's views was convoked at Waterford, and with one voice protested against the action of the Supreme Council in weakly yielding to Ormonde's proposals. Prior to the material aid supplied by Owen Roe's army, the Nuncio and those acting with him had to content themselves with hurling excommunication and other religious bombs at all those who in any way condoned or supported the peace. After Owen Roe's arrival a different form of protest was adopted. In the meanwhile Ormonde always straining after the peace which Charles was constantly urging him to con elude was not inactive. On August 6 he despatched Dr. Roberts, Ulster King at Arms, to proclaim the new peace throughout the south of Ireland. The Nuncio's party, however, had been equally busy, and Dr. Roberts' s announcement met with anything but a favourable reception. At Limerick, indeed, Ormonde's delegate was so roughly handled that he was fortunate to escape with his life. 1 It soon became evident that the Nuncio's party was not going to be content with the discharge of mere spiritual missiles. Early in September Owen Roe, at the head of 1,200 men, captured Roscrea and put to the sword every man, woman and child in the place except Sir George Hamilton's wife, who was Ormonde's sister. 8 On the 16th Kilkenny, terrified by the fate of Roscrea, sur- rendered at the approach of Owen Roe's army, and on the 18th Rinuccini made a triumphal entry into the town. All the members of the Supreme Council were imprisoned except Darcy and Plunkett, and a new Council was formed of which Rinuccini was nominated President. Lord Muskerry was deposed from the chief command in Munster and Glamorgan appointed in his place. Having successfully brought off this remarkable coup d'etat at Kilkenny, the Nuncio next 1 Roberts to Ormonde, August 28, 1646. Carte, vol. i. p. 584. 1646] ORMONDE BESIEGED IN DUBLIN 331 advanced his army upon the Lord-Lieutenant in Dublin. In this enterprise Owen Roe and his Ulster army had the support of Preston and the Leinster army, the latter having been won over to the Nuncio's cause by the irresist- ible argument of the longer purse. The combination would have been formidable in the extreme, had it not been that the Ulster army and the Leinster army hated one another far worse than either of them hated the enemy they were leagued against. The reciprocal hatred of the two Irish armies was to the full shared by their commanders. Owen Roe was the representative of the old or native Irish, and Preston of the Anglo-Irish or " old English," as they were then called. The two had no common tie except that of religion. On every other point they were candid and implacable foes. The hatred existing between Owen Roe and Preston would not necessarily have lessened the danger to Dublin, provided the two Irish Generals could have agreed for a sufficient length of time to launch a combined attack. Ormonde, within the walls, was in no position to put up a serious defence. His English royalist troops were few in number, badly paid, badly armed and badly fed ; all his chief supporters in Ireland were penniless ; their estates were devastated and their money resources had long ago been eaten up in the support of their troops. Their royal master, in whose cause they had sacrificed their all, was a prisoner with the Scots ; his fortunes were hopelessly on the decline. Outside the walls of Dublin was a savage and overwhelming force which threatened to cut the throats of all those inside unless the place was surrendered, and which had recently, at Roscrea, given grim proof that it was fully capable of carrying out its threat. In this emergency Ormonde, the staunch and unwavering Royalist, was forced to the admission that circumstances were too strong for him, and on the 29th of September he applied for help to the Parliament in England ! At the same time he sent a message to Monro imploring him to come to his assistance. Monro pleaded physical inability : his army, he said, had been shattered at Benburb, and he had not sufficient strength to venture so far afield as Dublin without imperilling the safety of his garrisons. The most that he was able to do was to order Conway's Lisburn regiment, which was wholly royalist in its 332 ROE'S RUPTURE WITH THE COUNCIL [CHAP, ix leanings, to make a diversion on the southern border of Ulster. In obedience to these orders Colonel Conway rode out of Lisburn on October 27 at the head of 700 mounted men l and occupied a fortnight in ravaging the four counties of Monaghan, Cavan, Louth and Westmeath. A quantity of arms, ammunition and supplies destined for Owen Roe's army was captured. Carrickmacross, which had been Owen Roe's headquarters during his stay in Ulster, was burnt, and all the newly constructed defences destroyed, after which 1,200 cows, 400 horses and 1,000 sheep were triumphantly driven home. 2 Owen Roe took no notice of Con way's operations in Ulster, and on November 2 he and Preston sent Ormonde a joint summons to surrender the city. To this summons Ormonde returned an unqualified refusal. It is quite possible that he had secret information as to the internal dissensions which were paralysing the movements of the Irish army. If not, his action was that of a very brave man. The tension between Owen Roe and Preston had by now, according to Carte, become so strained that each of the allied armies lived in daily and deadly fear of a surprise attack from the other. This mutual distrust made any- thing in the way of concerted action a sheer impossibility, and the investing army remained a mere menace and nothing more. At no time in the history of Ireland did a more magnificent opportunity present itself for over- whelming the invading Saxons and regaining Ireland for the Irish. Ormonde, with a mere scarecrow of an army incapable of real resistance, was cooped up in Dublin, while Monro, after his defeat at Benburb, was by his own confession incapacitated for taking the field, and could with difficulty have held his garrison-towns against a determined attack. In 1646, however as at other times private jealousies and ambitions counted with the leaders 1 It is difficult to understand how Conway could have raised 700 horsemen within four months of the battle of Benburb, from which only 40 of his regiment were reported to have escaped. The figure of 700, however, is furnished by his own pen. Lord Conway's regiment had its headquarters at Lisburn, but we learn from the " Despatch of an Unknown Officer " that detachments from the regiment also occupied four forts which had been con- structed in the Killultagh district. The one possible explanation is that only part of the regiment was engaged at Benburb. 2 " Exceeding good news from Ireland from Lord Conway." 1646] THE RELIEF OF DUBLIN 333 for more than the national interests, and the opportunity was missed. The only achievement at this period to the credit of either of the Irish Generals was the capture of Kells, which Owen Roe succeeded in surprising at the end of October. Two thousand men under Henry Roe and Phelim McToole made a forced march of twenty miles one night, and in the mists of morning caught the garrison off their guard. According to the authors of the Aphoris- mical Discovery and Warr of Ireland the entire garrison of 700 was put to the sword, the only man spared being the Governor, Sir Theophilus Jones. Richard Bellings, in his version of the affair, mentions that the Captain and Lieutenant of the garrison were killed, but says nothing about the slaughter of the garrison of 700, nor is it easy to see how so large a garrison could have been in occupation. On November 14 1,000 foot and 200 horse, which had been sent over by the Parliament in response to Ormonde's appeal, landed outside Dublin, and both Irish commanders at once raised the siege. This precipitate action on their part was, as events turned out, premature and unnecessary, for the stay of the parliamentary troops in the neighbourhood of Dublin was of the shortest. They had come over under the joint command of a com- mittee composed of Sir Robert King, Mr. Annesley, Sir Robert Meredith and Colonel Michael Jones, the last named being brother to Sir Theophilus. This committee acting on instructions gave Ormonde clearly to under- stand that before they could give him any help he must resign the Sword and place the garrison under their absolute control. To this demand Ormonde reassured by the prompt retreat of Preston and Owen Roe returned a flat refusal. The commissioners, on their side, refused with equal determination to help him on any other con- ditions, and in the end they re-embarked their troops and sailed up the coast to offer their assistance to the Scots. A marked change, however, was by this time beginning to show itself in the attitude of the Scots towards the Parliament, and the army to the great surprise of the committee was refused admission to either Belfast or Carrickfergus. The commissioners themselves were in- vited to come to Belfast, where they had an interview with the Ulster leaders, but they failed to persuade them 334 ROE'S RUPTURE WITH THE COUNCIL [CHAP, ix to admit the army, which was finally forced to make an unsolicited landing in Lecale. Upon the departure of the parliamentary troops, Owen Roe and Preston once more addressed themselves to the siege of Dublin, but contented themselves, as before, with attempting to starve Ormonde into surrender. For three months more the Lord-Lieutenant managed to hold out, in hopes of the unexpected, but his position finally became desperate, and on February 6, 1647, he wrote to the parliamentary commissioners, who were still in Lecale, accepting the terms which he had recently refused. The commissioners, mindful of Ormonde's quick change of front on the occasion of their last visit, expressed their willingness to renew negotiations, provided that Ormonde would hand over one of his sons as a pledge of his good faith. To this Ormonde agreed ; his second son, Richard, was despatched to England, and, after some little un- avoidable delay, the parliamentary forces returned to Dublin from Lecale. Very shortly afterwards 600 addi- tional troops arrived in Dublin from England, bringing the total reinforcements up to 1,400 foot and 400 horse. On June 19 the treaty with the parliamentary commis- sioners was signed. By the terms of this treaty Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk, Trim, Naas, Newry, Narrow-water, Greencastle and Carlingford were to be handed over to Colonel Michael Jones, representing the Parliament. The main stipulation on the other side was the relief of Dublin, which was in a starving and defenceless condition, but Ormonde was also apparently able to extract from the commissioners an undertaking that he himself should be guaranteed 2,000 a year in the future, should his rents not reach that figure. 1 This point was yielded, and on June 28 the Lord-Lieutenant handed over the Sword and sailed for England. 1 Carte, vol. i. p. 591. The author of Aphoriamical Discovery, who loses no opportunity of defaming Ormonde, says that the Marquis was paid 1,200 down, and was guaranteed 4,000 a year for life. CHAPTER X IRELAND UNDER THE PARLIAMENT WITH the departure of Ormonde at mid-summer 1647 the royalist party in Ireland ceased for the time being to exist. All the British forces were for the moment united under the command of Colonel Michael Jones, Governor of Dublin. The Irish forces, to all appearance, were equally united under the new Supreme Council, but in reality the old hatred between Owen Roe and Preston was as active as ever and prevented any real cohesion. So keenly was this recognised that the Nuncio feeling the necessity for separating the two took the first opportunity of sending Owen Roe and his army into Connaught with the object of capturing the important town of Sligo. Michael Jones, the Governor of Dublin and the Com- mander-in-Chief of the parliamentary force in Ireland, from the very first gave evidence of the remarkable military capacity which distinguished him throughout his brief career. In order to establish his authority on firm ground, his first act was to summon all the British forces in Ulster to a general inspection at Drogheda, where he reviewed them and sounded their leaders as to their allegiance to the Parliament. The reply of the leaders was that they were ready to combine with Jones against the Irish, so long as the action of the Parliament remained con- stitutional. Apparently satisfied with this assurance, Jones dismissed them at the end of a fortnight to their respective quarters. Colonel George Monck was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in north-east Ulster, and accompanied Colonel Conway's regiment back to Lisburn, which he made his headquarters. The Lagan Force was placed under the orders of Sir Charles Coote, who, at the same time, was appointed Governor of Derry in place of Lord Folliott. 23 335 336- IRELAND UNDER THE PARLIAMENT [CHAP. X Owen Roe's dismissal to Connaught left Preston the undisputed leader of the Irish forces in Leinster, a circum- stance of which he took immediate advantage. At the beginning of August he got together an army of 7,000 foot and 1,000 horse with which he commenced well by capturing Naas, which was one of the towns which had just been handed over by Ormonde to the Parliament. His next attempt was upon Trim. Before, however, he could succeed in reducing the latter place Jones got moving. He himself marched out of Dublin with 3,800 foot and two regiments of Dragoons, and at the same time he called upon Monck to send him down as many of the Ulster British as he could get together in the limited time avail- able. Monck sent down the Lisburn force under Colonel Conway and the Mount joy garrison under Colonel James Clotworthy, and these two succeeded in joining Jones on the flat strip of land between Maystown and Skrine. On learning of the junction of the two British forces, Preston at once raised the siege of Trim and retreated towards the south. During the course of his retirement he learned that the only regiment left in Dublin was the Earl of Kildare's regiment, which was composed of Ormonde's old soldiers, who might reasonably be supposed to have little real love for the Parliament whom they were temporarily serving. The opportunity which thus seemed to be afforded of getting possession of Dublin was not to be missed, and Preston set off with all possible speed in that direction. Jones gave immediate chase, and, in the hopes of retarding Preston's march, sent Colonel James Clotworthy and Major Harman on ahead with 500 horse. This mounted detachment overtook Preston's army at Dungan Hill, and almost at once came into collision with the Irish horse which Preston interposed between the pursuers and his own main body. In the encounter which followed Colonel James Clotworthy, we are told, behaved with extraordinary valour. 1 The Irish horse were quickly routed, and in their flight galloped through the midst of their own foot, who were thrown into confusion, and who on seeing themselves deserted by their own horse abandoned the idea of fighting and took refuge in the middle of a bog where they thought they would be safe. By this time the rest of Jones's 1 Hibernia Anglicana. 1647] BATTLE OF DtlNGAN HILL 3#f army had come up, and, by completely surrounding the bog, effectually prevented any further attempt at flight. The bog was then invaded by the British infantry, and a terrible slaughter ensued. According to some reports 5,470 of the Irish were killed, all their ammunition and baggage was taken, and last, but not least in importance, " sixty-four fair oxen for draft purposes." * As invariably happened in such cases, the Irish afterwards claimed that they had surrendered upon promise of quarter, a statement which the English utterly denied, but the truth or untruth of which is beyond the reach of modern investigation. The whole affair is somewhat mysterious, for even if we accept the Irish claim of a surrender upon terms it is still difficult to understand why a per- fectly equipped army, such as we know Preston's to have been, should have surrendered to a numerically inferior force without striking a blow. In addition to those killed, 250 prisoners were taken, among whom were the Earl of Westmeath and Colonel Byrne. The latter was an officer of considerable foreign experience, and was reputed one of the best of the Irish commanders. He and the Earl of Westmeath were subsequently ex- changed for Lord Montgomery and Sir Theophilus Jones, who were both prisoners in Lough Oughter Castle. Preston fled to Carlow ; the Ulster forces were dismissed to their own quarters, and Jones, flushed with victory, returned to Dublin. 1 The battle of Dungan Hill stands out as the heaviest defeat ever sustained by the Irish in the field. The House of Commons in England ordered a day of general rejoicing over the event throughout the kingdom. One thousand pounds was voted to Jones, 500 to Colonel Fenwick, and 200 to Sir Henry Tichborne. The destruction of Preston's army, which was reckoned the strongest and the best-equipped in Ireland, was a disastrous blow to the Supreme Council. Preston was relieved of his command and was relegated for the time being to more peaceful duties as Governor of Kilkenny and Waterford. All the survivors of his army joined Owen Roe, who was hastily recalled from Connaught 1 Rushworth, vol. vii, p. 779. 1 Carte, vol. ii. p. 7 ; Confed. and War, vol. vii. p. 33 ; Aph. Disc. ; Warr of Ireland. 338 IRELAND UNDER THE PARLIAMENT [CHA*. fc to try to repair the fortunes of the Irish party. Nothing could have suited Owen Roe better, and, after having expressed his contempt of Preston for having been so foolish as to be drawn into an encounter, he proceeded to put his own rival methods into operation. These took the form of a systematic devastation of all the country around Dublin, by which he hoped that Jones would, within a reasonable time, be starved into surrender. In this crusade of destruction no property was sacred. Many hundreds of " the goodliest haggards of corn that ever were seen in these parts " 1 were burned during the process. Some annoyance was no doubt occasioned to Jones by this wholesale destruction of good food, but nothing approaching the annoyance which was caused to many members of the Supreme Council, on whose property the " goodly haggards " had stood. On November 15, while Owen Roe was at Castle Jordan, which he had made his headquarters, he received a summons from the Supreme Council to appear before them at Kilkenny without delay, and answer to the following charges : " (1) Disobeying their commands. " (2) Having taken the money provided for the purpose of his expedition to Connaught (9,000) but having accom- plished nothing. " (3) Having allowed Athboy to be taken by the British without making any attempt to save it, he himself being safe in Castle Jordan at the time. " (4) Burning Dublin and Meath, the property of the Pale Lords." * The real cause of offence was, of course, contained in No. (4), but the mob which gathered outside the Assembly Room knew nothing of this, and on Owen Roe's appear- ance clamoured loudly for his death as a traitor to his country. The Supreme Council would no doubt gladly have yielded to this appeal, for they both feared and disliked the Ulster leader, but they had the sense to recognise that in him lay their only hope of any military success. Both Preston and Castlehaven had been proved incom- petent ; Lord Taafe, who had replaced Castlehaven in Munster, had just received an overwhelming defeat at the hands of Inchiquin and his parliamentary army at 1 Sir Maurice Eustace to Ormonde, August 28, 1646. 2 Aphoriemical Disc., p. 117. 1647] BATTLE OF 'KNOCKNONESS 339 Knocknoness (Shrub Hill) under circumstances which inspired but little confidence in the commander. The author of the Aphorismical Discovery, as the apologist of Owen Roe and the bitter foe of the Supreme Council and all its tributaries, accuses Taafe, Purcell and O'Grady, the three Irish commanders at the battle of Knocknoness, of having accepted from Inchiquin a bribe of 1,500 to betray their Highland ally, the famous Alastair McColl- kittagh Macdonnell. This is probably pure fiction. Accord- ing to Richard Bellings, who is usually reliable, the cir- cumstances responsible for Alastair' s death, and for the defeat of the whole army, were as follows : " The right wing," he tells us, " led by Alastair Macdonnell, a gallant gentleman and a well-experienced officer, routed with much slaughter the enemy's [Inchiquin's] Horse and Foot in their left wing and possessed the Ordnance, and pursued them as far as the gates of Mallow ; but the Foot of the Confederate left wing, after the first charge where they lost not six men ran hastily to the top of a hill, fearing belike that the right wing, which they saw not, was beaten, and intending though they were the last yet to overtake the runaways. Here the General [Taafe], by wounding some and encouraging others, got them to face the enemy until, spying a troop of Horse that made directly towards them, they flung away their arms, and trusting to their heels, no threats, no persuasions being of power to stop them, notwithstanding that the General and others swore and swore the truth that they were of their own party." * The flight of Taafe' s right wing left Alastair McColl- kittagh and his 700 Highlanders wholly unsupported, and they were killed to a man. The defeat of Taafe and the loss of Macdonnell, who was unquestionably the most redoubtable fighter opposed to the British at that time in Ireland, left the Supreme Council in considerable diffi- culties in the matter of a military commander, and seemed to point to the possible necessity in the future of receiving Owen Roe back into favour. At the moment, however, the leaders of the Confederate Catholics were still far too incensed at the destruction of their property to let the national interests overrule their own personal grievances. Owen Roe was disgraced and deposed from his temporary 1 Richard Bellings's Confederation and War, p. 35. 840 IRELAND UNDER THE PARLIAMENT [CHAP, x command of the army in Leinster, but he was ordered nevertheless to remain in Queen's Co. close at hand in case of emergency. In his downfall most of his Ulster associates deserted him. Sir Phelim, Turlough Oge O'Neil (of Glasdromin), Mulmore O'Reilly, Daniel Magennis and Coll MacBrian McMahon turned their backs on their old com- mander and marched off home with their contingents. 1 Philip McHugh O'Reilly, Phelim McToole and Rory Maguire alone remained faithful. 8 At this critical point in his career Owen Roe resolved on a bold stroke. The province of Leinster had little attrac- tion for him. He was personally unpopular with the country people, who had never forgiven the outrages committed by his soldiers before and after Benburb, and the Supreme Council, which held the reins of authority and controlled the exchequer in Leinster, were openly hostile to him on account of his recent destruction of their property around Dublin. On the other hand, opportunities which were not likely to recur seemed to present them- selves for a successful campaign in the north. The growing disinclination of the Ulster territorial regiments to leave their ordinary vocations and fight for the Parliament without pay was a matter of common knowledge. Of all these regiments, Lord Conway's regiment at Lisburn had been most consistently royalist, and it was by no means an unreasonable expectation that, in a sudden emergency, the regiment would be slow to range itself on the side of Monck. In this belief, Owen Roe resolved to attempt the surprise of Lisburn. His plans were well laid, but the whole scheme miscarried most unhappily. Conway's regiment, unsympathetic though it might be to the Parliament, had too clear a recollection of the days of 1641 to stand by idle while a native Irish army was on the war-path. " Two things," Richard Bellings tells us, " kept the English and the Scots in Ulster united : one was their unanimous aversion to the Pope's supremacy ; the other was the interests of the British nation, which all of them made their concernment to defend against the Irish natives." s One or other of these considerations, or possibly both, brought Conway's regi- ment into the field at the first intimation of Owen Roe's 1 Warr of Ireland, p. 70. * Relation of Col. O'Neil. 9 Confed. and War, vol. vi. p. 27. 1647] OWEN ROE DEFEATED BY MONCK 341 approach. Instead of waiting to be attacked at home, Monck very wisely sent the regiment out to meet the enemy half-way. Con way's regiment whose exploits were by now beginning to rival those of the Lagan Force now numbered 700 mounted men. Half of this number awaited the arrival of the Irish at a selected spot favourable for attack, while the other half rode round behind Owen Roe's column, and concealed themselves in a pass through which the invading force would have to make its retreat in case of defeat. Everything fell out as Monck had anticipated. Owen Roe's men finding that their surprise had failed turned and broke the moment Conway's horse attacked them, and fled homewards through the pass where the other half 'of the regiment lay hidden. Here their dis- comfiture was completed by the onslaught of the concealed men. Five hundred of the Irish were said to have been killed, and considerable quantities of arms and ammuni- tion were lost. 1 There can be very little doubt that Owen Roe's object in attempting this surprise attack had been to re-establish his prestige in Ulster by a second Benburb. Unfor- tunately for him the result was not as anticipated, and the complete overthrow of his force had the effect of leaving him even more friendless and discredited than before. He once more withdrew with such armed forces as remained to him to Leinster, being driven out of his own province more by the desolation of the country than by any fear of aggressive action on the part of Monck. His reappearance was anything but welcome to Preston, who had no wish to divide the meagre supplies which the province afforded with a rival and unfriendly army. So general and so strong had the feeling against Owen Roe and his northern men now become that he soon found it prudent to leave Leinster and to move on south into Munster, where being a stranger he was the object of no such pronounced antagonism. Other difficulties, how- ever, were awaiting him in the southern province. The moment he was over the border Inchiquin was hot upon his trail, and, though he failed to force him into an en- counter, he drove him from one end of the province to another and gave him no peace until he was once more over the border into Leinster. 1 JUishworth, vol. vii, p. 1107, 842 IRELAND UNDER THE PARLIAMENT [CHAP, x Here a new opening for his energies was found in the cir- cumstance of a recent rupture which had occurred between the Nuncio and the new Supreme Council which he himself had appointed. The trouble had first arisen over a Cessation which the Supreme Council, in combination with Preston, who was now Governor of Kilkenny, had con- cluded at the end of April with Inchiquin, in consideration of which it was alleged that the Supreme Council had paid the latter 8,000. 1 That this allegation was well founded is by no means improbable, for Inchiquin had been slaughtering and burning in Munster with a ferocity which threatened to destroy the whole province. The Nuncio's objections to the proposed Cessation were mainly on grounds which extended to all Cessations, of any kind, which were based on an abandonment of the terms con- tained in the Glamorgan Treaty, to which in spite of the King's denial it was still claimed that Charles was a consenting party. In such a dispute, Owen Roe was in complete sympathy with the Nuncio, and his first act on returning from Munster was to place himself and his vagrant army at Rinuccini's disposal. This constituted an open defiance of the Supreme Council, and on September 30 Owen Roe was publicly proclaimed by the Confederate Catholics to be " a rebel and a traitor against our Sovereign Lord the King." * In an attempt to detach the newly proclaimed traitor's remaining adherents from him, pardon was promised to all those with him who would lay down their arms before October 25, except Owen Roe himself, Emer McMahon, Bishop of Clogher, and Edmund O'Reilly, the Vicar-General. In this, the most decided split that had yet occurred among the Irish, the Roman Catholic clergy were very evenly divided, some siding with Preston and the Supreme Council, and others with Owen Roe and the Nuncio. Each party freely excommunicated the other with bell, book and candle, but without producing any noticeable effect. The lay disputants were equally threatening and abusive of one another, and, at Athlone, actually came to blows ; but little damage seems to have been done to either side. 1 Aphorinmical Disc, * Gilbert's Contemp. Hist. CHAPTER XI THE POLITICAL CONSCIENCE OF THE ULSTER SCOTS THE gradual change in the attitude of the Presbyterians in Scotland towards the Parliament was faithfully reflected among the Ulster Scots across the water, who, as time went on, began to show a rapidly diminishing friendliness towards those who represented the Parliament in Ireland. The events responsible for these changes had their begin- ning in the surrender of the King to the Scots in May 1646. The act of surrender itself did not materially affect the situation. The Parliament merely took advantage of the opportunity offered to lay before the King certain terms upon the acceptance of which they were ready to make peace. The main points on which they then insisted were : the command of the army and fleet for twenty years ; the exclusion of all Royalists who had fought in the war from civil or military offices ; the abolition of episcopacy and the establishment of the Presbyterian Church. The Scots, who at that time still saw eye to eye with the Parliament, pressed the acceptance of these terms on the King " with tears." Had he only agreed, he and the Presbyterians and the more moderate members of the Parliamentary Party would have formed a combination before which the budding power of the Independents would, in all probability, have withered away. Unfortunately, how- ever, the King, fettered by his constitutional inability to make any concession which might have the effect of weakening his royal prerogatives, and always procras- tinating in hopes of the unexpected occurring, refused, and the opportunity was missed. At the end of 1647 the King escaped, and fled to the Isle of Wight, where he was once more made prisoner by Colonel Hammond, the Governor of Carisbrook Castle. By this time the character of the Parliament had radically changed : the Independent 343 844 POLITICAL CONSCIENCE OF ULSTER SCOTS [CHAP.XI Party in the House was dominant, the Presbyterian Party shrinking and powerless. The military aid of the Scots was no longer required, and the solemn undertaking in con- sideration of which their aid had been forthcoming was contemptuously ignored. The strong reaction in the King's favour which followed upon the parliamentary repudiation of the Covenant presented certain hopeful possibilities to the mind of the King. While still a prisoner in the Isle of Wight, he signed a secret treaty with the Scots in which he undertook, in return for military aid, to give his full support to the establishment of the Presbyterian form of worship in England. This practically amounted to the King taking up the Parliament's recent position as a subscriber to the Covenant. In spite of the well-known fragility of the King's promises, the signing of this treaty made a very strong impression in Presbyterian circles. Nominally at any rate the King and the Scottish Presby- terians were now allied against the Parliament, and though the King, as a prisoner, had little actual power, the signing of the treaty was accepted as sufficient evidence of his good intentions. The effect on Ulster opinion of these new and unexpected developments was very great indeed, and revolutionised to a great extent many pre-existing ideas. In the earlier days of the struggle between the King and the Parliament the sympathies of the Ulster Scots had been very markedly with the latter. The struggle, as they then saw it, was a struggle for relief from a religious and monarchical tyranny, and they warmly espoused the cause of the party that, in their opinion, stood for liberty of conscience. Monarchy, as the main prop of prelacy, seemed at that time clearly indicated as a hostile influence. Then came the Covenant, and that which had before been a matter of conscience became a fixed obligation. The Solemn League and Covenant, in effect, left no room for conscience. By its terms the Scots were definitely bound to support the Parliament in return for the adoption and promulgation by that body of the Presbyterian form of worship. As long as the Parliament lived up to this undertaking the Scots had no option but to lend the Parliament their armed assistance, but the moment this ceased to be the case the choice of sides became once more a matter of individual conscience, 1648] MONRO'S REVOLT FROM THE PARLIAMENT 345 The Independent party, which was by now beginning to assume control of the country, had originally been formed by Sir Harry Vane, but by degrees, as the party grew in importance, the leadership passed into the hands of Cromwell, and, with the change, the old sympathies of the Parliament with the Presbyterian movement entirely disappeared. The Independents were composed of every conceivable shade of Nonconformist, and, to these, the conformity with Presbyterianism which the terms of the Covenant exacted was little less abhorrent than conformity with prelacy. The Covenant was renounced. Presby- terianism and prelacy were bracketed as joint enemies to that freedom of worship at which the Independents aimed, and eventually the Presbyterian members were expelled from the House of Commons, and the Rump Parliament, freed from any restraining influence, breathed destruction against Presbyterians and Prelatists alike. Before this astonishing reversal of the original situation the Ulster Scots for a time stood in doubt. Not only were they no longer bound to the Parliament by the terms of a Covenant which the latter had openly violated, but they even had to consider whether their recent allies did not stand out as a graver danger to their religious liberties than the episcopalian Royalists. Both Royalists and Parliamen- tarians were ardently wooing their support, and the burning question of the moment with one and all was as to which of the two suitors had the better claim. A traditional distrust of the episcopalian Royalists had to be weighed, on the one side, against the avowed hostility of the Independents and the recent treaty which the King had signed, on the other side. Opinions became divided ; some clung to their old attachment, while others denounced both parties as equally perfidious and refused allegiance to either. The revolt from the Parliament where it did occur was mainly of a passive character, and took the form of a refusal of service. The Lagan Force had been the first to adopt this form of protest. The Carrick- fergus garrison was not long in following its example. In March 1648 Monck wrote ordering the transfer of two pieces of ordnance from Carrickfergus to Lisburn. Monro, backed up by the officers of the Carrickfergus garrison, wrote back respectfully but firmly refusing to part with the guns, on the ground that he was responsible 346 POLITICAL CONSCIENCE OF ULSTER SCOTS [CHAP, xi for their custody and could not consequently let them out of his keeping. Monck had no means at the moment of enforcing his order, and had to swallow the affront as best he could, especially in view of the fact that Monro as he correctly stated had been put in charge of the guns by the Parliament of which he was still nominally the servant and supporter. Monck did not, however, forget the incident, and took the earliest opportunity of claiming his revenge. The excuse which he sought was very soon after furnished by the open defection of the Scottish General's nephew, Sir George Monro, who sailed from Ulster, at the head of a mixed force of Route Highlanders and Irish, with the avowed object of fighting against the Parliament in Scotland. It was generally hinted that this step had been taken with the full knowledge and approval of Sir George's uncle, General Robert Monro. In any event, this was the view taken by Monck, who saw in the defection of the nephew, and in the incident of the Carrickfergus garrison, a suffi- cient reason for arresting the uncle. On September 12, 1648, with the connivance of Major Knox and Captain Cochrane, 1 two officers of the garrison who had personal grudges against Monro, Monck was secretly admitted during the night into Carrickfergus. He arrested Monro in his bed. The Scottish General was sent off to London, where he spent the next five years as a prisoner in the Tower, " but what was against him," remarks the author of Warr of Ireland, " that deserved this imprisonment so long was kept silent from me." The Parliament attached the greatest importance to Monro' s capture, and showed an elation which was so unaccountable, in view of the fact that he had originally been appointed by the Parliament, that it can only be supposed that they had some secret knowledge of his inten- tion to go over to the Royalists. Monck was voted 500 " for this extraordinary service," and all the preachers in London were ordered to return thanks " for the great mercy of surprising the Scots General." ! Monck next seized Belfast, and sent an order to Lord Montgomery and Sir James Montgomery to join him there with their respective regiments for the purpose of 1 Cox adds the name of Captain Cunningham. 2 Jlushworth, vol. vii p, 1277, 1648] ARREST OF SIR ROBERT STEWART 34? an attack on Coleraine. Both refused. Monck seems to have taken their refusal in good part and dispensing with their aid advanced against Coleraine with his own troops. No opposition was offered him, and he took possession of the town in the name of the Parliament. Carrickfergus had been duly punished by Monck for its refusal to send guns to Lisburn ; it next became Sir Robert Stewart's turn to suffer for his previous act of insub- ordination against Coote. As in the other case, subterfuge had to take the place of open force. The two mutinous Lagan Force leaders, Sir Robert Stewart and Audley Mervyn, after their insubordination in the matter of the Connaught expedition, knew well enough that retribution was in store for them. Coote was not the man to overlook any attempt to thwart his will or dispute his authority. They accordingly withdrew to Culmore Fort, of which Robert Stewart was still Governor, where they adopted an attitude of open defiance. The Fort boasted no fewer than fourteen guns, and, as it completely commanded the narrowest part of the Foyle, Stewart and Mervyn were able to stop all provision ships bound for Derry, and even to compel some of them to discharge their cargoes at Culmore. In order to put an end to an annoyance which he was clearly powerless to meet by force, Coote had recourse to strategy. At the end of December 1648 a personal friend of Stewart's and a resident in Derry, named Major Erskine, was about to hold a baptismal ceremony in his house, which he invited both Robert Stewart and Audley Mervyn to attend. Coote, by some means, had full knowledge of the intended visit of his two enemies from Culmore, and Stewart and Mervyn were arrested at Erskine' s house during the ceremony and sent to England. 1 Erskine, the unconscious instrument of their capture, was himself arrested a few days later and sent after the other two. The charges laid against all three were that they were opposing the designs of the Independents. Having thus disposed of the two most popular leaders of the Lagan Force, Coote promptly seized Newtownstewart, Lifford and Castlederg, and sent word to Sir William Cole in Enniskillen to imprison Colonel Acheson, Major Graham, and Captain Ross, all of whom were suspected of being hostile 1 Wbitelocke, Memorials, p. 367 ; Reid, vol. ii. p. 80. 348 POLITICAL CONSCIENCE OF ULSTER SCOTS [CHAP, xi to the Independents. Cole returned reply that the three officers named were very popular with the garrison and that, in order to make him strong enough to effect their arrest, he must ask Coote to send him four troops of horse. This was done, and the three officers named were arrested and imprisoned ; but peace was by no means thereby established, as the Enniskillen garrison rose as one man and set the officers free ; after which they imprisoned Sir William Cole, seized 15,000 which they found in his house, and nominated Colonel Acheson Governor. 1 Inci- dents such as these could leave no room for doubt that, in spite of the arrest of Monro, the hold of the Parlia- ment on the territorial troops in Ulster was precarious in the extreme. The most disturbing feature in the situation was the reappearance on the scene of Ormonde, who unexpec- tedly landed at Cork on September 29, 1648. It became evident from the first that the Lord-Lieutenant's intentions were actively hostile. He lost no time in making his way to Kilkenny, which he reached early in October, and where he was given a cordial reception by the members of the Supreme Council, of which body from this time onwards he assumed the undisputed control. Ormonde, in his zeal for the King's service, was, in fact, driven by force of circumstances into many new associations with which in former days he had been in little sympathy, but which now constituted the only driving power within his reach. The Supreme Council of Confederate Catholics at Kilkenny had ample funds and considerable armed forces at their disposal. No matter what may have been the secret political ends of the Association in its infancy, there could be no doubt that at the close of the year 1648 its policy was simply anti-parliamentarian. In other words, its first and foremost aim was the overthrow of the growing power of the Independent Party which so seriously threatened its civil and religious liberties. When this had been accomplished it might very possibly have developed further aims with which Ormonde would not have been in full agreement ; but this was a situation which there was no particular advantage in anticipating. For the time being the immediate aims of Ormonde and of the Supreme Council were identical. Ormonde though still technically 1 Humphrey Galbraith to Ormonde, January 26, 1649; Carte, vol. ii. p. 69. 1648] THE RETURN OF ORMONDE 34 Lord-Lieutenant was, for obvious reasons, debarred from exercising his authority through the ordinary official channels. The only executive force at his disposal was that behind the Supreme Council, and of this force he took instant command. The members of the Supreme Council, for their part, were overjoyed at the prospect of the great Marquis making common cause with themselves. He was of their class and their race, sympathetic with them in all things except religion, and bound to them by neigh- bourly ties extending over several generations. His association with them was essentially a natural one, as also was his immediate recognition as their leader. His high social rank, his official position as Lord-Lieutenant, his magnificent physique and attractive personality, all marked him out as a leader of men in any sphere. Ormonde had left Ireland as the agent of an English King who had been striving to make peace with the combined Irish interests as represented by the Supreme Council. He returned as the gladly accepted head of the body with which he had formerly been technically at war. The execution of the unfortunate King, four months after Ormonde's landing, enormously extended the field in which the Marquis might with reasonableness look for support in his campaign against the Parliament, and the departure of the Nuncio a month later removed the only possible rival who might have disputed his position as leader. From the moment that the circumstances surrounding the King's death became generally known a wave of indignation had swept over the whole of Ulster. Among the Presbyterians, the fickleness of the late King, his unreasoning egoism, and even his Roman Catholic wife, were forgotten. All that was remembered was that one of his last acts had been to sign a treaty in which he undertook to support the Presbyterian cause against the invading tyranny of the Independents. He became for the moment a martyr to his principles, foully done to death by religious persecutors. The Scottish Presbytery denounced his execution as " unjustifiable murder and as a violation of the Covenant," and, following this example, the Belfast Presbytery issued a public protestation against the " execrable act of the King's execution," which was further denounced as being " contrary to the wishes 350 POLITICAL CONSCIENCE OF ULSTER SCOTS [CHAP. xi of the majority of this people and of their representatives in Parliament." 1 This last had reference to the forcible expulsion from the House of Commons of all but the Independent Rump. The publication of the Eikon Basilike, a pamphlet composed by a Presbyterian minister named Gauden, in which the last sufferings of the martyred King were graphically described, tended still further to inflame popular sentiment. The Scots, in an outburst of sudden loyalty, proclaimed Charles II King, and sent an Embassy to the Hague to assure him of their devotion and support. On the strength of Charles I's Isle of Wight Treaty, attempts were made to induce the young King to take the Covenant on the spot, but to this length he was not prepared to go. He stipulated for a certain amount of time in which to consider the proposals put forward, and with this the envoys had for the time being to content themselves. In the meanwhile anti-parliamentarian feeling ran very high in Ulster. Commiseration for the fate of the late King, coupled with undefined hopes in the possible beneficence of his successor, made a temporary Royalist of every colonist in the province. As, in old days, a common hatred and fear of the Irish had welded the Royalists and Parliamentarians into a solid body of defence, so did hatred and fear of the Independents now weld English Royalists and Scottish Presbyterians into a more or less solid body of opposition to the tyranny of the Parliament. Of the two the Presbyterians were at first, if anything, the more resolute in their resist- ance. The Covenant was renewed throughout the pro- vince, and both Coote and Monck were urged to take it ; both refused. Ormonde's opportune return to Ireland seemed to offer an obvious rallying point for all who wished to give practical expression to the detestation with which they viewed the execution of the late King. The Lagan Force as in 1647 was once again the first to move in the matter. After the arrest of Sir Robert Stewart and Audley Mervyn, Sir Alexander Stewart (Sir William's eldest son) had taken over the nominal command of the Force, but he had neither the influence nor the enthusiasm of some of the older officers. Colonel Gal- braith, who as a young man had so greatly distinguished 1 Reid. 1649] THE SIEGE OF BERRY 851 himself at the battle of Glenmaquin, had, of all the original officers, been the most consistently royalistic in his sympathies. Of this fact Ormonde had full knowledge, and before he had been many days at Kilkenny he com- missioned Colonel Arthur Chichester to pay a visit to Newtownstewart with a view to sounding Galbraith as to what help might be expected from the Lagan Force in the event of a revival of the royalist movement in Ulster. Galbraith being a cautious Scot returned no direct reply, but sent down Captain Irvine and Captain Cunningham to find out from Ormonde himself what it was exactly that the latter proposed. These two, after an interview with the Marquis, came back with the message that, if the Lagan Force wished to serve the King, it could give no better proof of its devotion than by capturing Derry from Coote. 1 This was obviously a difficult and dangerous undertaking, but not sufficiently so to deter Galbraith, who, on March 28, 1649, opened proceedings by seizing Carrigans and Newtowncunningham. This ini- tial act of hostility was very shortly afterwards followed by the capture of a quantity of wheat which was on its way to Derry for the use of the garrison. In this way began the first siege of Derry, which though far less celebrated than the second siege forty years later was still a sufficiently serious affair. It lasted five months, and, like its successor, reduced the defenders to terrible straits for want of food. Coote had 800 fresh English troops inside the walls, which constituted the entire garrison, for it does not appear that any of the original seven City companies remained with him in opposition to their comrades outside. At any rate, we know that Mr. Robert Lawson and his com- pany left Derry and joined the Lagan Force at Carrigans at the first rumour of hostilities between Coote and Galbraith. 2 Coote' s preparations for the siege were of a remarkably thorough character. He cut down all the orchards and gardens surrounding the city, and levelled the banks and hedges so as to deprive the enemy of all cover. Some of his sallies met with striking success. On April 23, in the course of one of these ventures, he inflicted on the Lagan Force the first reverse that famous corps had ever i Reid. 2 Ibid. 24 352 POLITICAL CONSCIENCE OF ULSTER SCOTS [CHAP, xi experienced. Twenty men, including Major Balfour and Captain Mattier, were killed, and Colonel Galbraith, Majors Hamilton and Graham and forty men were taken prisoners. The capture of Galbraith would have been a signal triumph for Coote had he been able to retain his prisoner. As it was, he was forced almost immediately to exchange him for food, of which the garrison was in sore need. So scarce indeed had food become that, in announcing his success to the Parliament, Coote was forced to admit that without speedy relief he would in- evitably have to surrender. 1 He sent urgent appeals for help to Monck, but Monck pleaded inability to move, and no help came from that quarter. Then it was that, in his extremity, Coote was forced to exchange thirty out of his forty prisoners, including the three captured officers, for thirty bolls of the wheat which had been originally destined for the garrison, but which Galbraith had intercepted and seized. 8 On May 26 Sir Robert Stewart and Audley Mervyn rejoined the Lagan Force, having escaped from London, where it would appear that they were but lightly guarded. Sir Robert brought with him a commission from Charles II appointing him to the command of the five regiments of the Lagan Force. 3 In face of authority such as this, backed up by the unanimous feeling of the corps, Sir Alex- ander Stewart had no option but to resign his command, and he at once crossed over to Scotland, where he was shortly afterwards killed at the battle of Dunbar. Gal- braith willingly resumed his old subordinate position. The arrival on the scene of the old Lagan Force com- manders was productive of no startling change in the Deny situation, and from May to July the siege dragged on uneventfully. In the latter month a new aspect was imparted to the operations outside the walls by the arrival among the besiegers of Sir George Monro at the head of a considerable force of native Irish and Route Highlanders. Sir George had left Ulster for Scotland in the early spring of 1648. After an absence of little more than a year, he returned with a commission which he claimed (and possibly with justice) to have received from Charles II, and with an enthusiasm for the royal cause which knew no bounds and which stopped short at nothing. 1 Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 397. a Reid. = Carte, vol. ii. p. 77. 1649] SIR GEORGE MONRO 353 Ormonde recognised his commission, but being in no mood to part with any of his own English soldiers put him in command of a mixed force of 1,700 native Irish and Route Highlanders, with which Sir George commenced operations by making a sudden descent upon Coleraine. This town, like most of the rest of Ulster, was no doubt only too glad of an excuse for shaking off the parliamentary yoke. It was peaceably yielded up, and Sir George then passed on to Antrim and Lisburn, both of which places followed the example of Coleraine and hauled down the parliamentary flag on the appearance of the royalist force. 1 Monck, alarmed by the sudden change of public opinion in Ulster, had already evacuated Lisburn and withdrawn out of the province to Dundalk, which he thenceforth constituted his headquarters. The capture for Charles II of Coleraine, Antrim and Lisburn by Sir George Monro was, as a matter of fact, a purely technical triumph, for Ormonde had given the most emphatic orders that both the Irish and the Route High- landers were to be used exclusively as field forces, and were on no account to be left in any Castle or fortress as garrisons. As Sir George had nothing else to leave, the only change effected by his nominal capture of the three towns was an official change of allegiance, to which none of the towns concerned had any objection. On June 17 Sir George appeared before Carrickfergus. Here, for the first time, he met with passive resistance. Major Ellis, who held the command for the Parliament, had only a weak garrison, but he managed to keep Sir George out for a week while he sent an urgent appeal to Coomber, begging Lord Montgomery to bring his regiment to his aid. Montgomery responded with alacrity, but no sooner was he and his regiment inside the walls than he declared himself for King Charles II, took forcible possession of the place, deposed Ellis and placed Colonel Dalziel in command. Sir George, who had previously arranged the entire plot with Montgomery, did not wait to share in his fellow-conspirator's triumph, but the moment Montgomery was inside the walls led his Irish west to assist Clanricarde in his attempt to^ recapture Sligo. This important place had now for five T^ars been occupied by Colonel Saunderson's regiment of thev Lagan 1 Warr of Ireland. 354 POLITICAL CONSCIENCE OF ULSTER SCOTS [CHAP, xi Force, which had successfully resisted every attempt to recapture it. Sir Robert Stewart had been appointed by Coote Governor of the town on the occasion of its first capture in 1644 (a circumstance which Audley Mervyn, who coveted the post, is said never to have forgiven), 1 and he now exercised his authority by sending Saunderson a written order to surrender the town to the representatives of the royalist cause, and to rejoin the Lagan Force before the walls of Derry. Saunderson had no option but to obey such an order, and on July 7 he set out northwards, accompanied, much against his will, by Sir George Monro with his wild following. 1 The addition of the latter to the besieging force was viewed with anything but favour by the members of the Lagan Force. The latter were Presbyterian almost to a man, while Sir George's men were all Roman Catholics, and the two had but very lately been at one another's throats. No open rupture, however, between the two discordant elements took place till the arrival on the scene of Lord Montgomery. This young man, after his successful seizure of Carrick- fergus, had passed on to Lisburn, where he caused himself to be proclaimed Command er-in-Chief, in the King's name, of all the British forces in Ulster. After spending a fortnight in his new headquarters, he too went on to the siege of Derry, which was now the only town in Ulster held for the Parliament, and which was in consequence the focus -point of all eyes. Montgomery joined the investing force on July 26, and, as his first act, summoned the City to surrender to King Charles II. Coote flatly refused, and on July 28 Montgomery ordered a general assault of the city. The assault was a failure. The assailants were repulsed with the loss of Captain Flemming, Lieutenant McClelland and forty men who were killed; while Colonel Galbraith, who was always to the front when there was fighting, was at the same time very severely wounded. 3 A far more serious matter for the besiegers than this reverse was the arrival outside Derry shortly afterwards of emissaries from the Belfast Presbytery urging on the Lagan Force the abandonment of the siege on the ground that their participation in it was contrary to the terms of the Covenant. Two events were responsible for this 1 Hibernia Anglicana. 8 Confederation and War. 8 Reid, vol. ii. p. 132. 1649] THE BELFAST PRESBYTERY TAKES ACTION 355 sudden and startling change of front on the part of the Belfast Presbytery. The first had been Montgomery's questionable behaviour in connection with the transfer of Carrickfergus into royalist keeping. As far as can be gathered it was not so much the capture of the place for the royalist interest, as the treacherous way in which it was done, which excited the resentment of the Belfast Presbytery. In any event, this body met shortly afterwards at Bangor and passed a unanimous vote of censure against Montgomery, on account of what they styled his " treacher- ous betrayal of the town." He was further denounced, on grounds which are less clear, as an upholder and promoter of episcopacy. The other event which excited the suspicion of the Belfast Presbytery was the arrival before Deny walls of Sir George Monro's Roman Catholic army. When, a fortnight later, Montgomery also joined the besieging force, it seemed clear to the members of the Presbytery that the Lagan Force was in danger of being involved in the meshes of episcopacy, or even worse, and emissaries were despatched to warn them of the evil influences which were in their midst. Such were the surface reasons given for the sudden change of attitude on the part of the executive body which governed the Presbyterian conscience. It is highly probable that the two incidents above referred to were not without their influence on the situation ; but there can be little doubt that the main factor in the case was the failure of the young King to live up to his promises and subscribe to the Covenant. Six months had passed since the Presbyterian envoys had assured Charles of their un- alterable support if only he would take the Covenant. The King had asked for time, and time had been given him, but half a year had passed since the Hague meeting and no signs of compliance with their petition were as yet forthcoming. Charles's long hesitation was taken and justly taken as a sign of his inherent reluctance to meet the wishes of the Scots, and, as this feeling spread, the enthusiasm for his cause which had followed upon the execution of his father began to wane. As a matter of fact, it was not till over a year after he had been inter- viewed at the Hague that Charles II actually took the Covenant, The delay proved fatal to his cause in Ulster. 356 POLITICAL CONSCIENCE OF ULSTER SCOTS [CHAP, xi It was assumed and not without reason that if the King was not with them he was against them, and, if he was against them, it automatically followed that his avowed adherents, such as Montgomery and Sir George Monro, were also against them. With these and similar suspicions working at the back of the mind of the Presbytery, incidents such as the treachery of Montgomery and the presence before the walls of Deny of Sir George Monro' s Roman Catholics assumed an exaggerated and sinister importance, and delegates were sent to detach the members of the Lagan Force from their dangerous associates. On arrival at Derry, the Belfast emissaries used all the arguments with which they were armed to prove that Mont- gomery who, by virtue of his commission as Commander- in-Chief, had assumed command of the investing army immediately on his arrival was really working against the Covenant, with the idea of enforcing episcopacy on the province, in substantiation of which attention was drawn to the active co-operation in the siege of John Leslie, Bishop of Raphoe. The presence of Sir George Monro and his Roman Catholics was also pointed to as an additional proof of Montgomery's dark designs. The spirit of the Covenant, it was argued, was being infringed by the participation in the siege of these anta- gonistic elements. The particular oath known as the Covenant was so framed as to lend itself to many and varied interpretations. Strictly speaking there was no Covenant in active operation at the time. The Solemn League and Covenant between the old Parliament and the Scots was obviously dead, and, in its absence, en- thusiasts had to fall back on the old Covenant with God, which, from its very nature, was indestructible. The old Covenant indeed was particularly applicable to the case, for its two arch enemies, prelacy and papacy, were fittingly represented on the present occasion by Mont- gomery and Sir George Monro. The arguments of the delegates were recognised as sound and had their immediate effect. Colonel Saunderson, several members of the Gore family, and a number of other officers and men of the Lagan Force abandoned the siege and dispersed to their homes. Lord Montgomery, Sir Robert Stewart, Audley Mervyn and Sir George Monro continued operations. Encouraged by this weakening of the investing force, Coote, in the 1649] SUCCESSFUL SALLY FROM DERRY 857 first days of August, sent out a strong raiding party under Captains St. John and Taylor, which achieved considerable successes, burning Carrigans, St. Johnstone and Newtown- cunningham, and capturing several field-pieces. 1 In spite, however, of such minor successes, the position of the Derry garrison remained very serious owing to continued shortage of food, and Coote lost no opportunity of impressing upon the Parliament that, unless speedy help was forthcoming, he would be compelled to surrender. The help which eventually forced the abandonment of the siege did not, however, come from the Parliament, but from the most unexpected of all quarters. i Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 44. CHAPTER XII THE RISE AND FALL OF ORMONDE JAMES BUTLER, Earl, Marquis and afterwards Duke of Ormonde, narrowly missed being a very great man. He was certainly a very gallant one. Critics will be found who may deny his claim to greatness, but few will be found to question his energy and sincerity of purpose in all that he undertook. Little less admirable, in a day when most men sat on the political fence, was his un- swerving adherence, through all vicissitudes, to the party with which he first threw in his lot. His failure to carry matters successfully through may be attributed to a variety of causes, but among these we can certainly not include lack of either energy or enthusiasm. During his leadership of the Supreme Council he instilled into that body a spirit of activity to which it had hitherto been a complete stranger. His first aim was to wipe out all the petty jealousies which had so far kept the various anti-parliamentary interests in Ireland apart. In this enterprise he met with a remarkable success which was only marred by one notable failure. His first and most im- portant recruit was the one-time royalist Inchiquin, who was easily persuaded to shake himself free of his late discreditable connection with the Parliament, and to accept a position as second in command to the com- bined forces which were being prepared for active service against Jones, Coote and Monck. Almost as important as his capture of Inchiquin had been his con- version of the Lagan Force. Prior to the interference of the Belfast Presbytery, he had managed to gain over practically the whole of that corps. Even after the mission of the Belfast envoys, as above described, he retained the support of a fair proportion of its members. The Pale Lords had rallied to his standard in a solid body. 358 1649] OWEN ROE NEGOTIATES WITH JONES 859 The one case in which he had to admit failure was that of Owen Roe. Owen Roe, after six years spent in unsuccessful pursuit of the objects with which he had come to Ireland, had at length, under continued hostile pressure from both foes and nominal friends, definitely abandoned his patriotic aims and had adopted the attitude of an independent force holding the balance of power between Royalists and Parliamentarians. A position such as this of necessity carried with it a considerable commercial value, and Owen Roe was eagerly approached by both parties. At first it would seem that he overrated the price he could command, for no business resulted. Jones appears to have been the first to open negotiations, for in August 1648 we find the Supreme Council issuing a proclamation in which Owen Roe was accused of treacherous intrigues with Jones. 1 These intrigues, in any case, came to nothing, presumably owing to an inability on the part of the principals to agree terms, and it then became Ormonde's turn to make a bid for the services of the Ulster chief. Here again, however, Owen Roe's terms proved too high and negotiations had to be broken off. The point in dispute in this case was as to the number of troops that Owen Roe should be allowed to keep at the expense of the Supreme Council's funds. Ormonde was willing to allow him 4,000, but Owen Roe stood out stubbornly for 6,000, and to this Ormonde having no doubt a shrewd suspicion that the 6,000 might in certain eventualities be used against him refused to agree. In disappointment at this second failure, Owen Roe once more opened negotia- tions with Jones, through the medium of Edmund O'Reilly, the Vicar-General. It is to be assumed that on this occasion there was a distinct modification in Owen Roe's demands, but the exact arrangement arrived at is not known, as we are told that the terms agreed were kept secret from all by the two principals concerned. The immediate result, however, was that, as a preliminary measure, Jones supplied Owen Roe with powder in return for grazing facilities for some of Jones's cattle, of which the latter was sorely in need. 8 The, whole arrangement was verbal, for it would appear that Jones had the firmest faith 1 Gilbert's Contemp. Hist., Preface. * " A Relation from Ireland," April 13, 1649. 360 THE RISE AND FALL OF ORMONDE [CHAP, xn in the inviolability of Owen Roe's given word. When Ormonde shortly afterwards wrote in disparaging terms of the Parliament's new ally, Jones's reply was that in his opinion Owen Roe was " a more real and honourable man than any of Ormonde's present associates " 1 (presumably on the Supreme Council). Owen Roe's first act of service to the Parliament (perhaps not entirely uninfluenced by his own private inclinations) was a visit to Kinard, where he burned all that remained of Sir Phelim's property, cut down all his orchards and devastated the surrounding country. 8 His next venture in the interests of his new allies was less happy. As early as the beginning of May Sir Charles Coote had realised that starvation might eventually force him to the surrender of Deny, and he sent his brother Richard and Major Ormsby to treat with Owen Roe for the im- mediate service of his army against the investing force. It is probable that these overtures of Coote' s were the outcome of Jones's previous negotiations, of which Coote undoubtedly had knowledge. In the course of the con- ference (which took place at Newtownbutler) Owen Roe asked, as the price of his services, for thirty barrels of powder and 400 beeves, or 400 in money, at the option of Coote. The two delegates agreed these terms, but when they got back to Deny Sir Charles refused to ratify them and the whole arrangement fell through. 3 Owen Roe at once turned his attention to Monck at Dundalk, who, though by no means as hard pressed as Coote, was never- theless in an isolated and perilous position. The two quickly struck a bargain on terms which Colonel O'Neil tells us were identical with those which had already been submitted to and refused by Coote. Monck gave his new ally some cattle for the immediate use of his army, and an undertaking to supply him with the requisite powder as soon as the occasion for its use arose. The occasion was not long delayed. In June Inchiquin joined Ormonde's camp with 2,000 of his Munster troops. The Lord-Lieutenant, who resented being kept out of Dublin Castle by those whom he rightly regarded as usurping rebels, was at the time wholly bent on the recapture of 1 Aphorismical Disc. vol. ii. p. 17. 8 Sir Phelim to Ormonde, April 1649. 3 Relation of Colonel O'Neil. 1649] TREVOR CAPTURES OWEN ROE'S POWDER 361 the capital, and had but little inclination for personally conducting any minor excursions. In the circumstances Inchiquin's arrival was most opportune, and, with 3,000 of Ormonde's men added to his own 2,000, he was sent up to effect the capture of Drogheda and Dundalk, which were still held, but with little enthusiasm, for the Parlia- ment. Drogheda surrendered the moment the siege-guns were placed in position, and Sir Thomas Armstrong, Sir Patrick Wemyss and Colonel Mark Trevor, with 800 of the English garrison, declared themselves for the cause of King Charles II, and joined Inchiquin. 1 Monck's position at Dundalk was now precarious in the extreme, and he sent an urgent message to Owen Roe, who was with his army at Glasdromin, bidding him come to his aid without a moment's delay. He added at the same time that, if Owen Roe would send a party to fetch the powder agreed upon, he would hand over twenty barrels and a corresponding quantity of match and bullets. In accordance with this arrangement Owen Roe sent a detachment of 1,400 men, to whom the ammunition was duly handed over, and who set out with it on their return journey to Owen Roe's camp. In the meanwhile Inchiquin, who was in Drogheda, had been fully informed of all the plans in connection with the proposed transfer of ammunition, and Colonel Mark Trevor, the recent con- vert, was sent north with six troops of horse to interfere with the carrying out of the transaction if possible. In this undertaking he succeeded beyond expectation. He managed to intercept Owen Roe's men on their return journey, killed 500 of them, put the rest to flight, and captured all the ammunition with which Monck had just supplied them. 2 Overcome by this unexpected blow, Owen Roe made no further attempt to co- operate with Monck, but dejectedly retired with his army to Clones.' Inchiquin at once invested Dundalk, and, after two days' siege, the garrison forced their commander to sur- render and went over in a body to Inchiquin, declaring that they would no longer serve under a commander who leagued himself with the native Irish. 4 Colonel Trevor, in recognition of his remarkable achievement, was made 1 Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 415. 3 Relation of Colonel O'Neil. 1 Ibid., p. 416. * Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 417. 362 THE RISE AND FALL OF ORMONDE [CHAP, xn Governor of Dundalk. Newry, Carlingford, Narrow- water and Greencastle surrendered next day. Probably because of its failure, and because of the loss of much valued powder, Monck's attempted alliance with Owen Roe was very severely criticised by the Parlia- ment in England, who, on August 10, passed a vote to the effect " that this House doth utterly disapprove of the proceedings of Colonel Monck in the treaty and Cessa- tion made between him and Owen Roe O'Neil, and that the innocent blood that has been shed in Ireland is so fresh in the memory of this House that this House doth detest and abhor the thought of closing with any party of popish rebels who had their hands in the shedding of that blood." Coote, according to Richard Cox, was also involved in the vote of censure, but not to the same extent as Monck. Jones appears to have been altogether exempted. The fortunes of the Marquis of Ormonde had now registered their highwater-mark. The astonishing rapidity with which he had overrun and captured the whole of Ireland was only to be equalled by the corresponding rapidity with which he was to lose all that he had gained. At the end of July 1649 Dublin and Deny were the only towns not in Ormonde's hands, and the position of the latter was so shaky that its downfall might reasonably have been expected at any moment. Few would have had the temerity to prophesy that, within two months, his power would have been completely broken and he himself a hunted fugitive. Owen Roe had hardly reached Clones before he was once more approached by Coote, who now expressed his willingness to agree to the terms which he had rejected in May. It is doubtful whether Coote had heard of the overthrow of Owen Roe's men by Trevor when he made this offer. He was in ever-increasing difficulties with regard to food. The reinforcement of the investing army by the addition of Lord Montgomery's and Sir George Monro's forces more than counterbalanced the defections in the Lagan Force, and made it clear that some quick and desperate remedy was called for if he was to avoid surrender. Carte says that Coote offered Owen Roe 5,000 to come to his assistance. This is hardly credible, but that Owen Roe took advantage of Coote's necessity in order 1649] THE RELIEF OF DERRY 363 to increase his demands is fairly certain. Mulhollan says that his new demands were for forty barrels of powder and 1,000 beeves. All agree that he was paid the price for which he stipulated but only after considerable delay. However, the actual terms agreed upon are a matter of little moment. The point of importance is that certain terms were arranged and that on August 7 Owen Roe marched north with 4,000 foot and 300 horse and encamped at Ballykelly in Co. Londonderry, on the opposite side of the Foyle to the beleaguered city. 1 By this time the greater part of the Lagan Force had abandoned the siege, the continuance of which was left to Montgomery and Sir George Monro. These two clearly considered the new combination against them too strong for their numbers, for, on the arrival of Owen Roe, they at once raised the siege and made off, Montgomery withdrawing with his troops into Co. Down, while Sir George Monro marched his following to Coleraine. The coast being now clear, Owen Roe crossed the Foyle and made a triumphal entry into the Maiden City, where he had an enthusiastic recep- tion, and where Coote, we are told, " treated him nobly." ! It is probable in the extreme that the hasty withdrawal of Montgomery and Sir George Monro was due, not only to the arrival on the scene of Owen Roe, but to the dis- quieting news which must by that time have reached them of the complete overthrow of the Marquis of Ormonde a week earlier at Rathmines. This disastrous defeat, which practically decided the fate of Ireland, was brought about as follows : On July 25 reinforcements from England had reached Dublin in the shape of two regiments commanded by Colonel Venables and Colonel Reynolds. It is very doubtful whether even with these additional forces Jones would have risked an engagement with Ormonde's army, which numbered, according to some accounts, 8,000, and according to others 16,000, and which was certainly well equipped with all the essentials of war. However, as events turned out, an engagement was forced upon him whether he wished it or not. Jones was so closely besieged that he had but one meadow, just outside the walls at Baggotrath, where his horses could get grazing. It occurred to Ormonde that, if earthworks were thrown up in the course of a single 1 Reid. 2 Relation of Colonel O'Neil. 364 THE RISE AND FALL OF ORMONDE [CHAP, xn night, so as to command the meadow, Jones would be deprived of his only means of feeding his horses, which would in consequence starve. The earthworks were accordingly started on the night of August 1, but Jones had information of the intended scheme, and, while they were still in course of construction, he sallied out with the bulk of his army and put the protecting force of 1,500 men to flight. Sir William Vaughan, who was in command, was killed. " Whereupon," Richard Sellings, who was pre- sent with Ormonde's forces, tells us, " all those in the left wing (except the regiments of Colonel Butler and Colonel Mulmore O'Reilly) ran away against their officers' utmost endeavours to stay them, without once facing the enemy, who, gaining field after field, came up to the ordnance and thus to the rear of the Lord-Lieutenant, where a party of Colonel Giffard's foot gave good fire for some time upon them. But, upon discovery of another party of the enemy marching to their front, some called for quarter and others threw down their arms." l Ormonde himself, according to his enemies, was playing dice, 8 and, according to his friends, was snatching a few moments' sleep after writing despatches all night, 3 when the battle started. In any event, it was some time before he appeared on the scene, and by that time the whole of his army was in flight and he had no choice but to join in the general stampede. It is difficult to find any excuses for Ormonde's igno- minious defeat at Rathmines. His army was splendidly provided with officers and with war material, and was greatly superior in numbers to that of Jones. Carte, as in duty bound, tries to find an excuse for the Marquis's over- throw in the flight in the first instance of Major Geohegan's horse, " who were seized with panic-terror and quitted the field upon Sir William Vaughan' s being killed in the first charge, so early that very few of them were lost, and could never afterwards be brought to rally notwithstanding all the Marquis of Ormonde's endeavours." 4 Jones's victory at Rathmines was as absolute though not as sanguinary as his previous victory against Preston at Dungan Hill. Four thousand of Ormonde's men were 1 Richard Bellings's Confed. and War, vol. vii. p. 129. * Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 419. 3 Carte. 4 Carte's Life of Ormonde, vol. ii. p. 81. 1649] BATTLE OF RATHMINES 365 killed and 2,500 taken prisoners. Among the latter were the Earl of Fingall, two Colonels, six Lieutenant-Colonels, eight Majors, forty-one Captains, fifty-eight Lieutenants and forty-two Ensigns. All Ormonde's artillery and immense quantities of stores, baggage and ammunition fell into the hands of the victors, and such an abundance of wine that the common soldiers drank it out of their hats. 1 The destruction of Ormonde's army, overwhelming as it was, did not necessarily mean the end of all his hopes of successfully resisting the ever-growing power of the Inde- pendents. It had from the first been part of his system to keep his Irish troops in the open field and his English troops in garrison, 2 and the bulk of the latter were still intact and available for service in the field provided he elected to concentrate them. This, however, would have necessitated the abandonment of his garrisons, which he was not yet prepared to sacrifice, and he preferred in the circumstances to attempt the raising of another Irish army. With this end in view he remained at Kil- kenny, where, by superhuman efforts, he succeeded in getting together a new Irish army of 9,000 men with which to assist in the defence of his garrisons. That such assist- ance would be called for at an early date was now a matter of certainty, for the relief of Derry meant that the formid- able Coote was now free to co-operate with Jones from the north. A more formidable figure, however, than either Jones or Coote was about to obtrude itself upon the scene. On August 15 Oliver Cromwell landed in Dublin in the capacity of Parliamentary Lord-Lieutenant, with 8,000 foot, 4,000 horse and 200,000 in money. 3 Jones's victory at Rathmines a fortnight earlier had very greatly simplified the task before the new Lord-Lieutenant. After a fortnight spent in organising and drilling his force, Cromwell set out for Drogheda, before the walls of which he arrived on September 3 with the bulk of his army, supported by the artillery captured from Ormonde at Rathmines.* Drogheda was garrisoned by 2,300 of Ormonde's best English troops, of whom a considerable proportion was formed of the original parliamentary garrison which had 1 Whitelocke, Memorials, p. 419. 3 Carte, vol. ii. p. 83. Ibid., p. 417. Aphorismical Disc. 866 THE RISE AND FALL OF ORMONDE [CHAP, xn gone over in a body to Inchiquin on his appearance before the walls three months earlier. These troops were under the command of Sir Arthur Aston of Fulham, Middlesex, a distinguished officer who had fought for Charles I at Edgehill. Sir Robert Byrons, Sir Edmund Verney and Sir Thomas Armstrong were among the subordinate officers. For a week Cromwell made no movement against the town, being content with perfecting his arrangements for its capture in case of resistance. During this week Sir Thomas Armstrong, at the head of his horse, attempted one sally from the town, but he was worsted and had to retreat. Some of Ormonde's new Irish army hovered in the background but made no serious attempt to co-operate with the beleaguered garrison. On September 9 Cromwell started battering the walls, and by the following day he had made a practicable breach close to St. Mary's Church on the south side of the river, where the smaller portion of the town was situated. He thereupon sent the following letter to Sir Arthur Aston : " Sir, having brought the army belonging to the Parliament of England before this place to reduce it to obedience, to the end that effusion of blood may be prevented I thought fit to summon you to surrender the same into my hands. If this be refused you will have no cause to blame me." l This summons produced no result, and Cromwell immediately ordered the breach to be stormed. The first attempt failed. Colonel Castle, who led the storming party, was killed at the head of his regiment, and his men driven back. Colonel Ewer's regiment was then ordered up and made a fresh attack, which was encouraged by the presence in person of Cromwell and Ireton. This second attempt proved successful, and a footing was established within the walls before which the garrison at first gave way and finally fled. A terrible slaughter followed. Cromwell gave orders that no one in arms no matter what his rank was to be spared. Numbers were killed as they crowded across the bridge towards the north side. Many of the principal officers, including Sir Arthur Aston, Sir Edmund Verney, Colonel Warren and Colonel Byrne took refuge on the Millmount, where they were all killed, according to Ormonde, an hour after they had surrendered.* Aston was 1 Gilbert's Contemp, Hist. 2 Ormonde to Byrons, September 29, 1649. 1649] THE SACK OF DROGHEDA 367 run through the body with a sword and then brained with his own wooden leg. Others took refuge in St. Peter's Church, where we are told that 1,000 were killed. The most fortunate were those who took refuge in the tower of the church, where they held out for some days till hunger forced them to surrender. Of these only the officers and every tenth man were killed, the rest, to the number of thirty or so, being shipped to Barbados. For four days the carnage continued. It was said that Cromwell's officers expostulated against his blood- thirsty orders, but he was obdurate. His own estimate placed the number of killed at 2,000, : but others added another 1,000 to this figure. It is certain that, with the exception of thirty of those who took refuge in St. Peter's Church, none of the garrison were spared. 8 We know from many sources that the garrison numbered in the neighbourhood of 2,300, so that, with the addition of those of the inhabitants who perished, it is probable that the total number of victims was not far short of 3,000. This dreadful massacre is invariably cited as an example of Cromwell's brutality to the Irish ; but, as a matter of fact, the vast majority of the victims were English. Prac- tically all the officers and by far the greater part of the garrison were English. As to this point there is absolutely no room for doubt. In the parliamentary version of the affair, Ludlow's Account of the taking of Drogheda, we read, " The enemy placed three or four thousand of the best of their men being mostly English in the town of Drogheda and made Sir Arthur Aston Governor thereof.' ' The royalist version is equally positive : "In this town [Drogheda] the Lord-Lieutenant had put the flower of his veteran soldiers, mostly English, under the command of Sir Arthur Aston." 3 Many of the Irish inhabitants, however, and several priests were undoubtedly killed in the general massacre. Cromwell's object in ordering the massacre of all those found in arms within the walls of Drogheda would appear to have been twofold. In the first place, he wished to strike terror into the hearts of the other garrisons which 1 Cromwell to the Speaker, September 17, 1649. 2 Cromwell to John Bradshaw, September 16, 1649. 3 Bates's Account of Drogheda Siege. 25 368 THE RISE AND FALL OF ORMONDE [CHAP, xii were still held for Ormonde, so that an immediate surrender should, in the future, follow on his summons. He himself in many of his letters to England made a great point of this form of justification, and argued that the two dreadful examples of Drogheda and Wexford saved, in the long run, an immense amount of bloodshed which would otherwise have been unavoidable. It seems tolerably clear, however, that there was a secondary motive at the back of his mind. Most of the officers and men of the garrison were apostates from the parliamentary cause, and, as such, objects of peculiar detestation to Cromwell and his colleagues in England. In September 1649, about the same time as the sack of Drogheda, the House of Commons resolved that " All English and Scottish that have acknowledged for the Parliament of England, and have revolted from that service, are traitors, and shall have their estates confiscated and their persons proceeded against by martial law." 1 Most of the officers and men of the Drogheda garrison very clearly came within this category of condemnation. In Cromwell's eyes they were all " traitors," and, in the most literal sense, their persons were proceeded against by martial law. In spite of his brutal display at Drogheda, it was Crom- well's endeavour, from the very first, to make it clear to the world that he was not at war with the people of an invaded country, but only with the armed forces which refused submission to the power which was still by courtesy called the Parliament, but which was in reality the per- sonality of Cromwell. Almost immediately after Drogheda, he issued a proclamation forbidding any soldier, on pain of death, to hurt any of the inhabitants or take anything from them, except on payment of ready money.* Whether this salutary measure was wholly due to Cromwell's sense of justice, or whether there were deeper designs be- hind it, is a matter of doubt ; but, in any case, the result was that the reassured natives brought all kinds of pro- visions into the army camps, and that Cromwell's soldiers were, therefore, well fed where previous armies had starved. Little less successful too, in their way, were the two bloody examples which Cromwell had made of Drogheda and Wexford. The latter affair which, according to Cromwell's letters home, was mainly the result of a mis- 1 Whitelocke Memorials, p. 422. * Carte, vol. ii. p. 90. 1649] CROMWELL'S METHODS 369 understanding, 1 was only a few degrees less sanguinary than that of Drogheda. After the sack of these two places there was no need to repeat the lesson, if truly a lesson was intended. Cromwell's invariable clemency and justice in cases of surrender, coupled with his savage brutality where assault had to be resorted to, quickly opened the gates of one town after another to his victorious army. It is quite possible that as Cromwell claimed less loss of life resulted in the aggregate from his drastic methods at Drogheda and Wexford than would have been the case had he adopted the slower processes usually resorted to in Irish wars. 1 Cromwell to Speaker Lenthall, October 1649. CHAPTER XIII THE END OF THE IRISH WARS IMMEDIATELY after the sack of Drogheda, and while Cromwell was still working his way south, Colonel Venables was sent north with his own regiment, Colonel Chidley Coote's regiment, and the late Colonel Castle's regiment, the latter under the command of Sir Theophilus Jones, once the staunchest of Royalists but now converted to the views of his brother Michael. Dundalk was found deserted and was left in charge of Major Ponsonby and a small garrison. Two days later Carlingford was taken, and on the following day Newry surrendered, in each case without opposition or bloodshed. While Venables was at Newry, emissaries from Lisburn came to him with an undertaking that the town would be surrendered on his arrival. He accordingly left an Ensign with a few men in Newry Castle and marched north to Dromore, where he encamped. During the night the camp was attacked by Colonel Mark Trevor, and Venables' s force, taken completely by surprise, was scattered in all directions. The remarkable discipline of the parlia- mentary troops, however, saved the situation. Venables and his officers, by means of great exertions, succeeded in rallying their scattered men, and, as soon as day broke, counter-attacked with such vigour as to dispossess Trevor of all the advantage he had gained. Major Villiers and Captain Usher, who had been taken prisoners, were rescued, and two lost standards were recovered. 1 On the following day, September 27, Venables advanced to Lisburn, where he was joined by Major Brough with a troop of local horse formerly belonging to Lord Con way's regiment. Four days later Belfast surrendered, and the garrison of 800 men, the greater part of whom belonged to Lord 1 A Relation of Several Services, by Major Meredith ; Carte, vol. ii. p. 89. 370 1649] DEATH OF OWEN ROE 371 Montgomery's regiment, on refusing to join Venables's force, were disarmed and turned out of the town with their wives and families. 1 The energies of the Cromwellian leaders were then directed to the capture of Carrickfergus, which threatened to offer a protracted resistance. All this time Owen Roe had remained at Ballykelly, waiting to be paid the stipulated sum which had been agreed between himself and Coote for the services of his army. The agreement which he had signed with Monck had terminated on August 8, and from that day on he was free to market his services where he would. In full knowledge of this fact, Ormonde had been in constant communication with Owen Roe during the whole period of his stay at Ballykelly, at times by means of Daniel O'Neil, Owen Roe's nephew, and at others through John Leslie, Bishop of Raphoe. It would appear that some definite understanding had been actually arrived at as the result of these negotiations, 8 but it was not productive of any immediate results. Owen Roe made no secret of his willingness to serve against his recent allies, but he explained his inability to do so, or, indeed, to move from where he was, until he had been paid the price agreed with Coote. 3 It may have been the knowledge of the negotia- tions passing between Ormonde and Owen Roe that influenced Coote to defer for a time the settlement of his debts, or it may have been that he actually was without the means to pay till headquarters supplied him with the necessary funds. In either case the final payment was not made till near the middle of September, and, on the 20th of that month, Owen Roe started south for Cavan, with the object of putting himself in closer touch with Ormonde. He was very ill from an inflamed knee-joint, which caused him great pain. Popular rumour attributed his illness to a pair of poisoned riding-boots which had been sent him, while he was in Derry, by Colonel Plunket, one of his Leinster enemies. There is no reason to suppose that this rumour had any foundation in fact. The Ulster leader had been in bad health from the moment of his landing in Ireland : his doctors attributed his ailments to gout, and the symptoms as described rather favour 1 A Brief Chronicle of the Chief Matters of the Irish Warres. 2 See Cromwell to Speaker Lenthall, October 25, 1649. 3 Carte, vol. ii. p. 83. 372 THE END OF THE IRISH WARS [CHAP, xm this diagnosis. His journey to Cavan occupied a long while, as he could only travel in a litter by very short stages. The arrangement which he had arrived at with Ormonde such as it was never matured, for he died at Lough Oughter Castle on November 6. Much has already been said as to this remarkable man's character. He would appear to have had all the elements of greatness, combined with a singularly honourable and conscientious disposition. With a little good fortune he might easily have left for himself a name as the greatest of all Irish patriots, but good fortune persistently passed him by ; in fact, the most striking and noticeable feature, throughout the latter part of his career, is the invariable ill- luck that pursued him in his dealings with friend and foe alike. Apart from the element of luck, his failure and his unpopularity with the upper classes among his fellow- countrymen was undoubtedly due in great part to the revolutionary nature of his programme, which insisted on a reversal of all the Plantation grants. Such aims were not only without attraction of any sort for the Roman Catholic Lords of the Pale, but actually consti- tuted a menace to their own well-being, for they were all aliens by ancestry, and usurpers of Irish lands. Their establishment in the country dated a century or two further back than that of the Ulster British; many of them had become semi-Irish by marriage and wholly Irish in religion, but, none the less, in the eyes of the natives they were aliens and usurpers, and a successful reversal of the Ulster Plantation grants would almost certainly have been followed by a reversal of the more remote Leinster grants. It was this common interest which bound together the Protestant Ormonde and the Con- federate Catholics, and which fanned their mutual fear and distrust of Owen Roe. Before the combination Owen Roe inevitably went down. The supplies of money and war material from abroad went direct into the hands of the Supreme Council at Kilkenny, and, though this body was willing to apply them to the purposes of war against Puritan fanaticism, it was but little disposed to subsidise a policy of general upheaval in which they themselves might be overwhelmed. Herein lay one cause of Owen Roe's failure. Another lay in his persistent bad health, and a third in his dour integrity of purpose. Had 1649] DEATH OF OWEN O'CONNELLY 378 he inherited even a fraction of the duplicity of his uncle, Hugh, Earl of Tyrone, he might have disguised his real aims till sufficiently strong to dispense with make-believe. As it was, his downright honesty and hatred of double- dealing proved his undoing. He stood out as a menace to too many vested interests, and, between the Ulster settlers in the north and the Confederate Catholics in the south, he was crushed. At the end of October Coote, who had lately been reinforced by 1,000 fresh troops from England, crossed the Foyle into Co. Londonderry, where he was joined by Sir Theophilus Jones at the head of the late Colonel Castle's regiment. Together the two advanced upon Coleraine, of which Sir George Monro had now been in occupation for nearly three months. Unlike the com- manders of Newry, Carlingford and Lisburn, Sir George Monro made no formal surrender, but evacuated the town upon Coote' s approach and made east with his army into Antrim, with a view to joining Lord Mont- gomery's regiment which had recently been turned out of Belfast. On his way he sent a detachment under Colonel John Hamilton to attack the town of Antrim, of which Colonel Owen O' Connelly had just been placed in command, Sir John Clotworthy, the original commander, being away in England serving on Parliamentary Com- mittees. O' Connelly had just been to Belfast, where he had obtained two troops of horse from Venables, with which he was in the act of returning to Antrim when Hamilton attacked him and completely routed his newly acquired force. Captain Reaper was killed and O' Connelly himself was taken prisoner. The latter, while being carried off by Hamilton, thought he saw an opportunity of effecting his escape and made a dash for liberty. He was pursued and killed before he could get clear of his enemies. 1 The defeat of O' Connelly gave Sir George Monro possession of Antrim for the second time within four months, and as on the occasion of his previous expedition in July he followed up the capture of Antrim by seizing Lisburn.* Being debarred by Ormonde's 1 Warr of Ireland. 2 We have no exact information as to the fate of Col. Conway's regiment of 700 mounted men. The regiment was evidently not in Lisburn at the date of Venables's advance, for we know that he was met by Lieut. Brough and one small troop only. The strong probability is that, upon Venables's 874 THE END OF THE IRISH WARS [CHAP, xin orders from occupying either place with his present troops, he burned both. Coote, having made his dispositions for the safe garri- soning of Coleraine, followed on in the wake of Sir George Monro, but not sufficiently fast to prevent his junction with Montgomery. Coote then went on to Carrickfergus, which Venables was besieging. This place held out for a month, but on November 2 Colonel Dalziel signed articles of surrender, the formal transfer being fixed for December 13. This released the two Cromwellian leaders, who at once marched towards Lough Neagh to try con- clusions with Montgomery and Sir George Monro, who were reported to be in the neighbourhood of Lisburn with 2,800 men. On December 6 Coote sent forward a small party of 200 horse under Major Gore of the Lagan Force and Captain Dunbar to reconnoitre. This party found Montgomery in full retreat and thinking the opportunity a fitting one attacked the rear of the column. The success of this unexpected attack was almost beyond belief. 1 The entire army fled without once facing about. Colonel Henderson, Colonel Saunderson, 8 Philip McMulmore O'Reilly and 1,000 men were killed, while the total loss to Coote' s detachment was only one corporal and two privates. Colonel Hamilton and Lord Clandeboye, a very fat young man who had succeeded his father in 1644, were taken prisoners. Montgomery fled south and joined Ormonde. Sir George Monro escaped by swimming the Blackwater. He stayed for a time in Charlemont and then went to Enniskillen, where he superseded Colonel Acheson in the command by virtue of his commission from the King. 5 The death of Owen Roe had left the Irish Ulster army without a leader, and on March 18, 1650, a meeting was approach, the regiment had disbanded. It was composed entirely of territorials, and, in face of the difficulty of knowing which side to support, it is probable that they decided to leave the government of the country in the hands of the Cromwellians and disbanded. 1 The extraordinary rout of Montgomery's men on this occasion is pos- sibly to be explained by the fact that they had no arms. We know that 800 of his men had been disarmed before being turned out of Belfast shortly before, and it would seem as though Montgomery was not out to fight, but was working his way south with a view of getting arms from Ormonde when Coote's men overtook him. If this is a correct supposition, Sir George Monro's men would be the only portion of the force that were armed. * Not to be confused with the Lagan Force leader. William Basil to Speaker Lenthall, December 12, 1649. 1650] EMER McMAHON SUCCEEDS OWEN ROE 375 held at Belturbet with McSweeney, Bishop of Kilmore, in the chair to elect a successor. The most prominent candidates were the Earl of Antrim, Sir Phelim O'Neil, Daniel O'Neil, Henry Roe O'Neil, General Fennell, and Emer McMahon, Bishop of Clogher. After a keen com- petition the last-named was elected, to the pronounced disgust of Antrim, who from that time on threw in his lot with the Cromwellians. The election of McMahon had the effect of driving more important recruits into the Cromwellians' camp than the Earl of Antrim, whom Carte describes as " very vain and very incompetent ; a great boaster and a small performer." McMahon was a Bishop, even though a titular one, and the Presbyterian element among such members of the Lagan Force as had so far remained Royalist was at once galvanised into active hostility. It appeared painfully clear to these that any party or army with a Bishop as its acknowledged head could be nothing but an instrument for the revival of episcopacy. The first outburst of loyalty which had followed on the succession of the young King had not long survived his sustained refusal to take the Covenant. A year had now passed since the Presbyterian envoys had journeyed to the Hague, and the one condition on which they had promised the support of their country- men was still unfulfilled. The strain on the loyalty of the Presbyterians was too great. The young King had failed to furnish the one pretext which would have justi- fied them in espousing the royalist cause. On the other hand, a native Irish army was in the field, with a Roman Catholic Bishop at its head. Here was a natural and clearly defined enemy which, if it achieved the supremacy of Ulster, might yet be responsible for a repetition of the 1641 experiences. In such a simple situation, the duty of the Lagan Force seemed clear. Such as did not return to their homes in indecision, joined the Cromwellians. 1 By the spring of 1650 Venables, who had now been appointed Governor of Ulster, had won over, either by force of arms or by persuasion, all his former opponents with the exception of the native Irish. On April 14 Sir George Monro surrendered Enniskillen to Coote according to some accounts in consideration of a payment of 500 and returned to Scotland, and shortly afterwards Bally- Warr of Ireland, p. 117. 376 THE END OF THE IRISH WARS [CHAP, xm shannon was surrendered to Captain Hewson. Charle- mont and Lough Oughter Castles, both occupied by the Irish, were now the only two strongholds in Ulster not in the hands of the Cromwellians, and in April Coote wrote to Venables suggesting that they should join forces and besiege the first-named place, which had now defied capture for nine years. In order to prevent, or at all events to hinder, such a conjunction, Emer McMahon made his first move as Commander-in-Chief by swooping down on the Co. Londonderry garrisons with an army of 5,000 men. 1 Dungiven Castle, which refused to sur- render, was carried by assault and the garrison of twenty put to the sword. Colonel Mark Beresford, who was in command, was sent as a prisoner to Charlemont, and his wife and Lady Coote, who were also inside the walls, were safely escorted by McMahon to Limavadyand handed over to the care of Captain Phillips. 8 Ballykelly, influenced by the fate of the Dungiven garrison, surrendered without opposi- tion, but Captain Phillips refused to give up Limavady, and this place successfully resisted all attempts at capture. 3 McMahon' s most important capture was Castle Toome, at the outlet of the Bann from Lough Neagh. The strategic importance of this place was very great, as it commanded the only practicable passage from east to west Ulster north of Lough Neagh, and its occupation by McMahon was a serious hindrance to Venables' s plans. The Bishop left Shane O'Hagan with 1,200 men inside the walls, and, with the rest of his army, moved west to the banks of the river Mourne, where Lifford was either evacuated on his approach or handed over to him by Major Perkins, the former constable of Dungannon Castle. So far McMahon had displayed admirable generalship. He had effectually prevented the threatened conjunction of Coote and Venables, and by so doing had appreciably delayed the siege of Charlemont at which they were aiming. His next object was to overwhelm Coote before Venables could reinforce him. The latter, who was in Dublin at the time, knew of Coote' s weakness, and of his danger from McMahon' s powerful army, and he promised to send him 1,000 men round by sea with as little delay as possible. The bulk of his own forces in Ulster were still fully occupied 1 Whitelocke Memorials, p. 459. Warr of Ireland, 3 Coote to Ireton, July 2, 1650. 1650] McMAHON'S INACTION 377 in the recapture of the forts which McMahon had seized. Castle Toome, the strongest of these, held out for eight days, but on the ninth day Shane O'Hagan surrendered, and he and all his 1,200 men were allowed to march out. 1 Coote, at the time of McMahon' s advance upon Lifford, had only 800 foot and 600 horse to rely upon. Of this force, half were English and half belonged to the old Lagan Force, now reduced to two regiments under the command of Colonel Saunderson and Colonel Gore. Colonel Hunk's English regiment was used for garrison purposes in Enniskillen and Deny. McMahon' s original army had been reduced to under 4,000 men by the necessity for finding garrisons in Co. Londonderry, but even so it was nearly three times the strength of the force at Coote' s disposal. The Bishop, who was a man of tireless energy, as well as a capable commander, was quick to realise that the opportunity which presented itself for crushing Coote' s little force was unique and on no account to be missed. There could be no doubt that McMahon' s summing up of the situation was a thoroughly sound one, but unfortunately it did not harmonise with the views of his subordinate officers, who were one and all opposed to the policy of immediate attack. Conspicuous among these was Owen Roe's son, Henry Roe, whose opposition to offensive measures was so sustained that, in the end, McMahon openly accused him of cowardice. The effect of this hesitating attitude on the part of his officers was that the Bishop missed a golden opportunity. Instead of attacking Coote in force before reinforcements could arrive, he contented himself with an uneventful skirmish in which Coote lost Captain Cathcart and Captain Taylor (the last-named of whom, we are told, was killed while fighting very valiantly) and from which McMahon emerged with a decided advantage, but which produced no definite or lasting results. Instead of pursuing this initial ad- vantage, McMahon was once more held back by the over caution of his officers, who finally persuaded him not only to refrain from attack but to withdraw his army to Letterkenny, ten miles distant from the scene of the late skirmish. By this policy the value of the Bishop's late success was not only discounted but was practically credited to the other side, for it gave Coote' s expected 1 Warr of Ireland. 378 THE END OF THE IRISH WARS [CHAP, xin reinforcements time to arrive. So long as he had only his own small force to rely on, the Deny Governor had very grave doubts as to his ability successfully to oppose McMahon's advance. All the British inhabitants of east Donegal and north Tyrone were told to withdraw to Inishowen, in the neck of which it was Coote's intention to make his final stand. 1 The necessity for this last expedient as events turned out was never forced upon him, for, while the Bishop's army was contenting itself with shaking a threatening fist from a distance of ten miles, Coote's reinforcements arrived. On June 18 the thousand men whom Venables had promised sailed up the Foyle under Colonel Fenwick and joined Coote at Lifford. This welcome addition to his force at once put Coote in a position to abandon the defensive and to attack the Bishop on his own ground. On the 20th he marched to Letterkenny, and on the 21st he launched his attack. McMahon, whose army was drawn up in a well-selected position at Scarriffhollis, once more had the greatest difficulty in prevailing upon his officers to accept battle. The result, when they did so, was very far from satis- factory. The Lagan Force under Colonel Saunderson and the English troops under Colonel Fenwick attacked with a determination before which the resistance of McMahon's men quickly broke down, and the whole army turned and fled. One thousand five hundred were reported to have been killed in the pursuit which followed, including the Bishop of Down, Lord Maguire (the son of Connor), Shane O'Neil and Hugh Maguire. All the ammunition, baggage and colours and most of the horses were captured. Henry Roe, Phelim McToole and Shane O'Hagan were taken prisoners. Sir Phelim fled to Charlemont, and the Bishop with the remnant of his army rode south towards Fermanagh. Beyond the limits of this county he was not destined to pass, for one of his men named Brian Maguire gave information to the Enniskillen garrison that the Irish Commander-in-Chief was in the neighbour- hood, and Major King rode out with a squadron of horse and effected his capture. Coote's losses in the battle were very small : Captain Sloper was killed and Colonel Fenwick received wounds from which he subsequently died. 8 Colonel Gore was 1 Coote to Ireton, July 2, 1 650. 2 Confederation and War, vol. iii. p. 666. 1650] BATTLE OF SCARRIFFHOLLIS 379 also amongst the wounded. Fenwick, Gore, Richard Coote and Captain Duckingfield were all reported to have greatly distinguished themselves during the fighting. 1 Henry Roe, Phelim McToole and Shane O'Hagan, the three most prominent Irish prisoners taken, were subse- quently executed some say at Derry and others on the battle-field. The latter version seems to be the correct one. Colonel Henry O'Neil, in his Relation, quotes from an eye-witness, according to whom the three prisoners were brutally murdered by Coote' s orders after having surrendered upon promise of quarter. This accusation as already stated was invariably made throughout this war in every case where prisoners of importance were killed or executed after capture. Ormonde made the accusation in the case of Sir Arthur Aston and the other English officers killed at Drogheda. The same accusation was made against Owen Roe by the Supreme Council on the occasion of the capture of Castle Desart, where Captain Piggott and all the garrison were killed z ; but there is no reason to suppose that it was any better founded in this case than in the others. In the matter of Sir Arthur Aston and the others killed at Drogheda, it seems fairly clear that Cromwell's slaughter of the officers was a carefully considered part of his scheme for striking terror into the hearts of the remaining garrisons in Ireland. In the case of capture by assault, it was the invariable custom, among the Irish no less than the English, to spare the principal officers for purposes of ransom or future exchange, and to put every other man to the sword. It is obvious that a custom such as this must have been an encouragement to those in command to refuse terms of surrender and to run the risk of assault. In the case of success they achieved a certain reputation, and in the case of failure it was the rank and file who were sacrificed. The fate of Sir Arthur Aston and the other Drogheda officers made it quite clear to the remaining garrison commanders that refusal to surrender would involve their own persons in the same risks that threatened the common soldiers. Coote' s action after Scarriffhollis was obviously a continuance of the policy inaugurated by Cromwell at Drogheda. It was designed to show that 1 Coote to Ireton, July 2, 1650 ; Whitelocke Memorials, p. 464. 1 Confederation and War, vol. vi. p. 23. 380 THE END OF THE IRISH WARS [CHAP, xm the old custom of exempting the aristocracy from the perils of war was a thing of the past, and that officers of high rank, whether English or Irish, were in future to be dealt with on the same lines as the common soldiers. According to Colonel O'Neil, Coote reprimanded his men for having taken their prisoners alive and ordered their instant execution. Coote was undoubtedly a ruthless opponent. Among all the leaders of the day, he and Inchiquin stand out as the two most brutal, but it is greatly to be doubted whether he was the man to go back on his word, or to violate any of the fundamental principles of civilised warfare. According to Mulhollan he lost 500 men in the siege of Charlemont, but none the less he allowed Sir Phelim and all his garrison to march out as free men, because this was a condition of the terms of surrender. The Bishop of Clogher was executed at Enniskillen some five weeks after his capture. Major King, who had taken him prisoner, pleaded hard for his life, but Coote was not to be moved, and he was hanged. Emer McMahon appears to have been a man of many good qualities. He first came into public prominence as the man who warned Radclyffe during Stratford's ad- ministration that a rising of the native Irish was in con- templation. This happened several years before the actual outbreak. During the progress of the rising he sided whole-heartedly with the Irish, but he does not appear to have been personally responsible for any of the early massacres of the British settlers. Attempts were made to identify him, while Vicar-General, with some of the massacres at Carrickmacross, but the point is very far from being established. Ormonde held a high opinion of his honesty. " These twenty years," he said, " I have had to do with Irish Bishops. I never found any of them to speak the truth or to perform their promises to me, only the Bishop of Clogher excepted." 1 As a military leader he seems to have had undoubted energy and very considerable ability. His tactics after his appointment appear to have been admirable, and, had he not yielded to the timid counsels of his officers, he would probably have crushed Coote' s little force before the expected reinforcements could have arrived. As it was his 1 Walsh, p. 743. 1650] CAPTURE OF CHARLEMONT 381 defeat at Scarriffhollis was due less to faulty generalship than to the indifferent display of his army. Before quitting the subject of the prisoners taken at Scarriffhollis, it is interesting to note among them the name of Phelim McToole O'Neil. The interest lies in the fact that Phelim McToole had been officially killed nearly two years earlier by his friend Henry Roe in a drunken brawl. Not only does Richard Bellings announce this fact in a letter to Ormonde dated November 25, 1648, but Carte actually goes into details as to the number of Owen Roe's men who deserted him on account of the murder of McToole, who was one of his most popular leaders. 1 At Scarriffhollis, however, the dead man is once more reproduced by Colonel O'Neil, by the author of Aphorismical Discovery and even by Carte himself. The only possible explanation is that the original report was an exaggeration. Phelim McToole may have been wounded by Henry Roe, and it is quite possible that he and his immediate following may have deserted Owen Roe on that account, but he was very clearly not killed. Carte unquestionably based his first statement on Bellings' s letter, and then overlooked the fact of the dead man's reappearance. In July Venables and Coote undertook the long-de- ferred siege of Charlemont. Mulhollan, whose sympathies were very much on the other side, says that the siege lasted five or six weeks, during which the British lost 500 men. There is no corroboration from other quarters of either statement. Venables' s account is that the guns were got up without delay to within fifty yards of the walls and a breach effected. In the assault which followed the British were repulsed with a loss of 40 killed and 250 wounded.* On August 6, however, the garrison put up the white flag, and Sir Phelim came out to discuss terms with the two leaders, while Audley Mervyn* and Sir Robert King went into the fortress as hostages for Sir Phelim' s safe return. Terms were agreed, the fortress was surrendered, and Sir Phelim and his garrison were allowed to march out with their arms. 4 1 Life of Ormonde, vol. ii. p. 56. Venables to Cromwell, August 1650. 3 This is the first occasion on which Mervyn appears on the side of the Cromwellians. He was not present at Scarriffhollis. * Warr of Ireland. 382 THE END OF THE IRISH WARS [CHAP, xin Coote had told Sir Phelim that he must leave Ireland, but this course had evidently little attraction for the late Governor of Charlemont, who had as his third wife married Lord Strabane's widow, with whom he had acquired considerable property in north Tyrone. To his own undoing he remained. For over two and half years Sir Phelim retained his liberty, but he had a relentless pursuer in the person of young Lord Caulfield, who had been re-established in Charlemont from the moment of its capture. Lord Caulfield had not only his elder brother's death to avenge but also the terrible atrocities which had been committed on his brother's tenants and on other British colonists living in and around Charlemont. As a preliminary step, Sir Phelim' s wife was taken prisoner and kept at Charle- mont, rather, as it would seem, with a view to facilitating her husband's capture than for any offence chargeable against herself. Retribution finally overtook Sir Phelim through the treachery of one of his fellow fugitives named Philip McHugh O'Neil. This man, who was hiding on an island in Co. Tyrone with Sir Phelim, was tempted by the price of 300 placed on the latter' s head to betray his hiding place to Lord Caulfield. 1 According to Mulhollan the island in question was an island in Lough Ruchan close to Charlemont. There is no such lough near Charlemont, and it is clear that Mulhollan' s topography is here at fault. There can be little doubt that the island on which Sir Phelim actually hid was the island in Lough Laigheare (L. Katherine Baron's Court). This lough was in the centre of his wife's property near Newtownstewart. The island had on it an old Danish Castle, and was so thickly wooded that even the Castle was hidden from the shore 200 yards distant. Here, in the midst of his wife's retainers, he would have every chance of living for many months without fear of detection. A betrayal was his only danger, and to that risk he fell a victim. The island still bears the name of " Philip McHugh," though even locally the origin of the name is lost in obscurity. Sir Phelim was captured by Lord Caulfield in February 1653, and sent to Dublin for trial. An attempt has been made to impart a tinge of heroism to his character by 1 Warr of Ireland. 1650] SIR PHELIM EXECUTED 383 representing that he was offered his life if he would make the statement that Charles I had given him an authority for the 1641 rising, and that he nobly refused to save his life by incriminating the late King. Such was not by any means the case. Sir Phelim had made statements incriminating the King on any number of occasions. He had even read aloud in the market-place of Armagh a forged document which purported to give him the King's authority for everything he did. If he had found no scruples in making such statements for ordinary political purposes, it is not likely that he would have hesitated to make them in order to save his life. What he was challenged to do, and what he was offered his life if he could do, was to prove the genuineness of the royal authority of which he had so repeatedly boasted. This was of course beyond his powers, and the law took its course. So far from displaying anything in the nature of heroism, Sir Phelim would appear, at his trial, to have given a lamentable exhibition of terror. " This cruel monster of men," Michael Jones wrote to Major Scott, " when he first came to the bar, was scarce able to stand for trembling or to speak for tears." l Whether Sir Phelim was really " a cruel monster of men " is open to doubt ; he would seem rather to have been a weak and cowardly creature, lacking the courage to check or reprove the atrocities committed by his fol- lowers. It is seldom that we find him, as we do Rory Maguire,' actually superintending and directing massacres ; he is more often the onlooker from a distance. As soon as war took the place of massacre he ceased to be a figure of the first importance. His name, which figures in every page of the massacre records, is seldom found in any of the chronicles of war. Even Charlemont, which was nominally his headquarters, had to rely on others when assailed by the enemy. Its first constable had been Neil Modder O'Neil, who was succeeded by Nial O'Neil. The latter, in turn, gave place to an Englishman named Captain Whyte, who was replaced by another Englishman of the name of Sandeford, who conducted the defence operations during the final siege. 3 What may have been the nature 1 Colonel Jones to Major Scott, March 1, 1653. 2 Rory Maguire was killed by a bullet at the siege of Carradrumruisk in 1648. a Friar O'Mellan. 26 384 THE END OF THE IRISH WARS [CHAP, xm of the inducement offered by Sir Phelim to these two Englishmen to fight for him is not known. The capture of Charlemont practically completed the conquest of Ulster, and from that time on Coote trans- ferred his energies to Connaught. As a matter of fact, Lough Oughter Castle remained in the occupation of Philip O'Reilly till April 1653, when it was delivered up to Sir Theophilus Jones, and O'Reilly was, very properly, pardoned for any share he might have had in the 1641 rising. On the alarming news that Charles II had taken the Covenant and had landed in Scotland, Cromwell left Ireland early in 1650, after a bare nine months' stay in the island, and turned his attention to the subjugation of the Scots, who had openly declared for the young King the moment he had taken the Covenant. Cromwell's son- in-law, Ireton, remained to carry on operations in Ireland. Ireton, like Cromwell, preserved the most rigid discipline among his men, and punished with the greatest severity any acts of robbery or violence committed against the natives. It is difficult to understand why Cromwell is always cited in patriotic Irish circles as the arch-persecutor of the race. Except in the cases of Drogheda and Wexford, where the majority of the victims were English, his con- quest of Ireland was singularly bloodless and entirely free from the wanton excesses in which the soldiery so frequently indulged under other commanders. By the side of Inchiquin or Coote he stands out as an angel of mercy. It seems probable that the original idea was to enlist sympathy for Ireland by depicting the most un- popular character in British history as her arch-enemy. The survival of the idea is, without a doubt, due in the main to ignorance of facts. On the establishment of peace, a sum approaching a million sterling was found to be due to the British troops in respect of arrears of pay. These arrears were never paid, but were satisfied by grants of land under the scheme known as the Cromwellian Settlement. INDEX Acheson, Sir Archibald, case of, 74 Acheson, Colonel, takes the Cove- nant, 299 ; arrested, 347 ; Gover- nor of Enniskillen, 348 Acrashanig, massacre at, 141 Adair, Patrick, Presbyterian Church in Ireland, 299 n. Adair, William, 298 Adams, Ellen, mutilated, 146 Adams, John and Thomas, mur- dered, 146 Aghentain Castle, 187 ; attack on, 193 Aldridge, Robert, 141 ; flight, 248 Alleyne, Captain, 54, 60 Annesley, Arthur, 316, 333 Antrim, 6 ; British settlement of, 37 ; attack on, 215 ; massacre in, 251 ; famine, 264 ; capture of, 353, 373 Antrim, Alice, Countess of, charges against, 207 Antrim Castle, 166 Antrim, Randal, Earl of, 62 ; in the revolution, 111 ; ordered to seize Dublin Castle, 116 ; return to Dunluce, 262 ; prisoner, 263 ; escape, 264 Aphorismical Discovery, vi, 96, 114 115 n., 249, 250, 251 n., 263 n. 266, 273 n., 279 n., 282 n., 286 n. 289, 290, 293, 303, 304 n., 308 n. 324 n., 327, 328 n., 333, 334 n. 337 n., 338 n., 339, 342 n., 360 n. 365 n., 381 Ardee, 168 Ards, Lord, 233 Argyll, Earl of, leader of the Cove- nanters, 73 ; regiment, 233 n. Armagh, 9, 65 ; population of, 6 ; distribution of land in, 5 1 , 52 ; mas- sacres in, 123, 235, 241 ; taken by the rebels, 136 ; refugees, 238 ; ruins of, 241, 271 ; concentration of the British forces at, 302 Armagh Church, surrender of the refugees in, 173 Armstrong, Captain, 162 Armstrong, Sir Thomas, 361 ; killed at the siege of Drogheda, 366 Arran Island. 32 Artagarvey House, siege of, 203 Aston, Sir Arthur, in command at Drogheda, 366, 367 ; killed, 366, 379 Atherdee, 232 Atkinson, Anthony, 138 Atkinson, Roger, 147 Augher Castle, 12, 60 ; attack on, 190, 192 Aughnacloy, 189 Bagwell, Ireland under the Stuarts, 44 n., 57 n. Bailey, Captain John, surrenders, 153 Baker, Lieut., surrenders at Deny, 19 ; in charge of Culmore Fort, 26 Balfour, Major, killed, 352 Balleymoney, massacre at, 204 Ballinrosse, massacre at, 200 Ballintoy House, siege of, 205 Ballybeg, battle of, 286 Bally castle, massacre at, 207: burnt, 262 Ballykelly, relief of, 268 ; surren- der of, 376 Ballymena, 165 Ballynakill, battle of, 286 Ballynemony, 61 Ballyshannon, Castle of, 186 ; mas- sacre at, 249 ; surrender of, 376 Bann, the, 164, 222, 262, 269; fishing rights of, 59 Barclay, Captain, killed, 191 Barnaby, Francis, 185 Barret-Lennard, Mr., 141 Barry, Colonel, offers to raise troops, 294 Batemanson, Marmaduke, 157 Bates, Account of Drogheda Siege. 367 n. Bawn, Daniel, shelters British, 244, 249 Beal, Colonel, 316 385 INDEX Beare, Jane, on the massacre in LoughgaU Church, 174 Bedell, Ambrose, 112; prisoner, 152 ; in command of Croughan Castle, 159 Bedell, William, Bishop of Kilmore, 85; prisoner, 152; illness, 153; death, 153 Beg, John, number of victims in massacres, 255 Belfast, the British at, 162 ; meet- ing of Ulster leaders at, 298, 301 ; seizure of, 346 ; protest against the execution of Charles I, 349 ; surrender of, 370 Belling, Captain, 87 Bellings, Richard, vi ; Confedera- tion and War, 303 n., 307 n., 322 n., 329 n., 337 n., 339 n., 340 n., 354 n., 364 n., 378 n., 379 n. ; Vice-President of the Supreme Council of Confederate Catholics, 322 Belturbet, 55 ; treatment of the British at, 149-151 ; exodus from, 150 ; massacre, 155 Benburb, Irish victory at, 122, 250, 327 Beresford, Colonel Mark, in com- mand at Dungiven Castle, 376 ; prisoner, 376 Berkeley, Robert, 139 Bernard, Dr., Dean of Armagh, Whole Proceedings, 228 ; on the number massacred, 246 Berry, William, murdered, 146 Berwick, Rawdon Papers, 252 n. Bevridge, Mr., murdered, 240 Bingley, Sir Ralph, 26 ; at Inch Island, 13 Birge, Mr., murdered, 208 Birt Castle, 19 ; assault on, 26, 27 ; surrender of, 27 Blackwater, number drowned in the, 224; Church, massacre at, 243 Blair, Captain, taken prisoner, 306 Blayney Castle, seized by the rebels, 137 Blayney, Lady, prisoner, 138, 253 ; unsuccessful search for, 271 Blayney, Lord, escape, 138 ; meet- ing at Belfast, 301 ; commands Lisburn regiment, 317 ; at the battle of Benburb, 326 ; killed, 327 Blayney, Richard, prisoner, 138 ; killed, 139 Blennerhasset, Anne, evidence on the massacres, 145 Blennerhasset, Thomas, 48 Blount, Captain, 162 Blundell, William, murdered, 178 Bodley, Sir Thomas, survey of the counties, 40 ; prospectus, 43 Bolton, Charles, 271 Borlase, Sir John, Lord Justice, 78, 93; Rebellion, 119n. Boswell, Mrs., murdered, 176, 198 Boswell, William, murdered, 198 Boyd, Archibald, 205 Boyd, Captain, killed, 182 Boyne, river, 168, 227 Bramhall, Bishop of Deny, 77 ; on the condition of the Church, 85 Branthwaite, Robert, 249; pri- soner, 138 Brantry, 272 Brereton, Henry, 255 Brent, Sarah, murdered, 146 Brickland, Lough, island, capture of, 233 British Colonists in Ulster, 7, 36, 62 ; relations with the Irish, 47, 95, 103, 219, 257 ; massacres, 109, 112, 123-128, 135-207, 215- 218, 221-226, 235-256; retalia- tory massacres, 207, 212, 234, 254, 256; number killed, 211, 246; sufferings and privations, 252-257 ; prisoners released, 271, 274; programme of the Irish, 284 Bromley, Margaret, on the number drowned at Scarva, 223 Brough, Major, at Lisburn, 370 Brownlow, John, 61 Brownlow, William, case of, 61 Brownlow, Sir William, surrenders Lurgan, 172 ; prisoner, 238, 271 ; captures Dungannon Castle, 272 Buckingham, George, 1st Duke of, expedition to Rochelle, 71; as- sassinated, 72 Buncrana, 17 Bundooragh, 122 ; battle of, 214, 250, 275 Burke, Edmund, 138 Burley, Captain, wounded, 182 Burns, Mr., murdered, 192 Byrne, Colonel, 131 ; prisoner, 337 ; killed at the siege of Drogheda, 366 Byrons, Sir Robert, at the siege of Drogheda, 366 Cadogan, Captain, 228 Calendar State Papers, 11 n., 12 n., 13 n., 16 n., 17 n., 18 n., 19 n., 21 n., 22 n., 25 n., 28 n., 29 n., INDEX 887 33 n., 34 n., 35 n., 38 n., 41 n., 46 n., 50 n., 51 n., 52 n., 53 n., 54 n., 55, 56 n., 60 n., 67 n., 74 n., 75 n., 77 n.. 80 n., 98 n., 100 n., 185 n., 277 n. Campbell, Charles, saved from hanging, 142 Canning, George, besieged, 203 Carew, ominous prophecy, 63 Carigans, seizure of, 351 Carleton, Sir Dudley, 80 Carlingford, surrender, 234 ; cap- ture of, 370 Carlisle, Bishop of, 10 Carr, James, hanged, 155 Carradrumruisk, siege of, 383 n. Carragh, Shane, 34 Carrickfergus, 86, 233, 261, 287; arrival of Dutch ships at, 296 ; siege of, 353, 374 Carrickmacross, massacres at, 200 ; burnt, 332 Carte, Thomas, vi ; Life of James, Duke of Ormonde, 92, 93, 131 n., 132 n., 133 n., 134 n., 231, 246, 276 n., 364 n., 381 n. ; on the causes of the Rebellion of 1641, 95; the military abilities of Owen Roe, 279 ; the number killed at Benburb, 327 Castle, Colonel, killed at Drog- heda, 366 Castlehaven, Lord, Commander-in- Chief of the Ulster Army, 303 ; skirmish at Dromore, 306 ; with- draws to Charlemont, 306 ; quar- rels with Owen Roe, 307 ; retires south, 308 Castleton, Richard, prisoner, 152 Cathcart, Captain, killed, 377 Cathcart, Mr., 147 Cattle, torture of, 192 Caulfield, Lady, discovery of, 271 Caulfield, Lord, captures Sir Phelim O'Neil, 382 Caulfield, Toby, Lord, 62; rent- collector, 53 ; grant of land, 53 ; at Charlemont Castle, 135 ; mur- dered, 175, 225 Cavan, population, 6 ; distribution of land, 54-56 ; massacres, 123, 149 Cessation of 1643, 292 ; expires, 306 Chadwell, Mr., murdered, 240 Champion, Arthur and Thomas, hanged, 146 Charlemont Castle, 135, 267 ; seized by the rebels, 136 ; massacre at, 244 ; surrender, 272 ; siege, 276, 381 ; abandoned, 290 Charles I, King, compensation from the City Companies, 42, 77; ac- cession, 71 ; methods of raising money, 71 ; submission to the Scots' demands, 72 ; secret in- trigues with Ireland, 73 ; exac- tions from, 73 ; subsidy, 74 ; warning on the Irish rising, 114; negotiations, 115, 116, 321 ; war with the Covenanters, 117; con- demns the Covenant, 298 ; sum- mons the Oxford Convention, 309 ; on the demands of the Irish, 311 ; concessions to, 312, 318; treatment of Glamorgan, 323 ; taken by the Scots, 331, 343 ; appeals to the English Par- liament for help, 331 ; flight, 343 ; prisoner in the Isle of Wight, 343 ; secret treaty with the Scots, 344 ; execution, 349 Charles II, King, restoration, 257; proclaimed King, 350 ; delay in taking the Covenant, 355 ; takes the oath, 384 Chichester, Arthur, Lord, change in his policy, 5, 8 ; Lord Deputy of Ireland, 24, 65 ; his repression of O'Dogherty's rebellion, 24, 31 ; overtures to Neil Garv, 25 ; assizes at Dungannon, 30 ; at Coleraine, 31 ; colonisation of Ulster, 36, 39 ; reclamation of the natives, 39 ; on the treachery of the Irish, 47 ; tolerance for religion, 48 ; imposition of fines, 49; on the distribution of land in Cavan, 55, 56 ; opinion of Sir D. O'Cavan, 57; created Lord, 62 ; retirement, 65 ; death, 65 ; compared with Cromwell, 65 ; character, 66 ; grants of land, 66 ; methods of warfare, 66 ; reasons for his unpopularity, 66 Chichester, Colonel Arthur, in com- mand of the British force at Bel- fast, 162 ; march to Dromore, 164 ; withdraws to Lisburn, 164 ; bullet passes through his hair, 233 ; foraging expedition, 287 ; meeting at Belfast, 298, 301 Clandeboye, James, Lord, 62, 233, 271 Clandeboye, Lord, taken prisoner, 374 Clankelly, 54, 100 Clarendon, Edward, Earl of, 92 ; INDEX on the causes of the Rebellion of 1641, 95 Clarke, William, 222 Clogher, 185 Clogy Rev. Mr., Life of Bedell, 68 n., 84 n., 85 n., 112n., 127, 128 n., 159 n., 160 n., 246 n. Clones, seized by the rebels, 141 ; massacres at, 142 ; battle of, 288 Clonfeacle, massacres at, 248 Clontarf Harbour, provision ship seized, 134 Clotworthy, Colonel James, captures Mountjoy, 272 ; at the battle of Dungan Hill, 336 Clotworthy, Sir John, 132, 167; commands garrison at Antrim, 208; result of his ruse, 274; rescues prisoners, 274 Codan, Captain, Constable of Dun- gannon Castle, hanged, 272 Coke, Sir Edward, 71 Cole, Sir William, 68 ; rescue work, 124 ; warned of the rising, 132, 144 ; escape from Crevenish, 143 ; fails to warn the British, 144, 185; controversy with Sir F. Hamil- ton, 144, 185 ; defence of Ennis- killen, 145 ; meeting at Belfast, 298 ; takes the Covenant, 299 ; imprisoned, 348 Coleraine, 9, 21 ; population, 6 ; executions at, 31 ; distribution of county lands, 56-59 ; county confiscated, 56 ; houses built, 59 ; mortality of refugees, 213; re- lief of, 269; capture, 347, 353; evacuated, 373 Confederate Catholics, Supreme Council at Kilkenny, relations with Owen Roe, 280, 329, 338, 372 ; policy of, 283, 348 ; alli- ance with Ormonde, 292-294, 329 ; fails to supply troops, 294 ; treaty with Glamorgan, 322 members imprisoned, 330 ; rup- ture with Rinuccini, 342 Connaught, expedition against, 314 Connelly, Pat, 139, 142 Constable, Joan, deposition on the massacre at Mrs. Smith's cot- tage, 217 Conway, Colonel, commands the Lisburn regiment, 317; ravages in Ulster, 332; fate of his regi- ment, 373 n. Conway, Sir Foulke, created Lord Conway, 62 ; defeated at New- burn, 72, 86; at Belfast, 233; Marshal of Ireland, 234, 261 ; captures Kinard, 271 ; com- mander of the Lisburn regiment, 317; deposed, 317; victory of Lisburn, 341 Cook, Catherine, deposition on the massacres, 198 Coomber Castle, 161 Coote, Sir Charles, Governor of Dublin, 133 ; his victory at Trim, 275 ; cruelty, 306, 380 ; at the Oxford Convention, 309 ; Gover- nor of Connaught, 314 ; relations with the Lagan Force, 314 ; cap- tures Sligo, 315 ; invasion of Connaught, 315; commands Lagan Force, 335 ; Governor of Derry, 335 ; arrests Sir R. Stewart, 347 ; seizes Newtown- stewart, 347 ; his defence of Deny, 351, 354; overtures to Owen Roe, 360, 362 ; defeat of Mont- gomery, 374 ; precarious posi- tion, 376 ; arrival of reinforce- ments, 378 ; siege of Charlemont, 381 Cork, 348 ; raid on, 305 Corbett, Mr., killed, 19 Corbridge, massacre at, 5140, 243 Connack, John, 195 ; evidence on the massacres, 146, 148 Corry, Anne ny, 209 Cottingham, Rev. George, Rector of Monaghan, 140 Covenant, The Solemn League and, 297, 344 Covenanters, Scottish, revolt, 72 ; war with Charles I, 117 Cox, Richard, Hibernia Anglicana, 116 n. Craig, Archie, murdered, 247 Craig, Sir James, defence of Croughan Castle, 153 ; death, 159 Craig, Lady, death, 159 Crawford, Colonel, 134 Creevelough, massacre at, 240 Creichton, Alexander, 140 Creichton, Rev. George, 106 ; on the Pale Lords and the Irish, 111; on the rebellion, 118; evidence on the massacres, 150, 199 Crevenish Castle, 143 Croker, Elizabeth, 255 Cromwell, Sir Edward, 6 Cromwell, Oliver, compared with Lord Chichester, 65 ; policy in Ireland, 257 ; lands in Dublin, 365 ; siege of progheda, 365- INDEX 389 367 ; massacres, 366-368 ; pro- clamation, 368 ; result of his methods, 369; leaves Ireland, 384 Cromwell, Sir Thomas, 62. See Le- cale Crossach, Brian, 22 Croughan, Castle of, attack on, 154; retaliatory raid, 158; siege, 158; surrender, 160 Culmore Fort, 17, 347 ; capture of, 18 Daly, Dr., flight, 199 Dalziel, Colonel, refuses to take the Covenant, 299; commands at Carrickfergus, 353 ; surrenders, 374 Dargan, Sir John, offers to raise troops, 294 Davies, Sir John, 43, 195 ; His- torical Tracts, 52 ; on the system of exactions, 104, 105 Deirendreiat, alleged victory at, 250 Derg, Castle, 189 ; attack on, re- pulsed, 191 Derg river, 51 Deny, capture of, 18; burnt, 19; relief force at, 25 ; houses built, 59; defence of, 265; food shortage, 265 ; siege, 351-357 ; raised, 363 Desart, Castle, capture of, 379 Despatch of an Unknown Officer, 256, 322 n. Devine, Hugh, prisoner, 267 Digby, Captain, 205; at Dunluce Castle, 262 Dillon, Sir James, 130 ; victory at Mullingar, 286 Dillon, Lord, Lord Justice, 78 Disputatio Apologetica, 246 Dixon, Timothy, hanged, 155 Docwra, Sir Henry, 12, 43, 57 Dogh Castle, 21, 29 ; assault on, 27 ; surrender, 30 Donegal, 64 ; population, 6 ; dis- tribution of land, 50 ; murders in, 247 Donegal Castle, 21 Donellan, Judge, at trial of Sir "Phelim O'Neil, 112, 125, 141 n. ; at the Oxford Convention, 309 Donnelly, Patrick Modder, 241 ; seizes Dungannon Castle, 135 Dowcoran, 61 Down, 6 ; British settlement, 37 ; number massacred, 249, 251 Down, Bishop of, receives news of the rising, 161, 185; flight to Belfast, 185 Doyne, Michael, 184 Doyne, Mrs., shelters British, 183, 218, 249; courageous conduct, 184 Doyne, Theresa, 184 Drogheda, siege of, 159, 168, 227, 365^367; reinforcements, 170; arrival of food supplies, 227, 228 ; failure of the attack on, 229 ; troops inspected, 335; surrender of, 361 ; massacres, 366-368 Dromore, 163 ; defence of, 164 ; capture, 164 ; ruins, 233 ; skir- mish at, 306, 370 Drumboate House, seized by rebels. 137 Dublin Castle, plan for the seizure, 131 Dublin, condition of the refugees in, 151 ; mortality, 152 ; enrolled, 170; siege, 331, 334; raised, 333 ; parliamentary troops in, 334; reinforcements, 363 Duckingfield, Captain, at the battle of Scarriffhollis, 379 Duffey, Loughlin, 141 Dunbar, battle of, 352 Dunbar, James, 195 Dundalk, 168, 370 ; capture of, 232 ; siege, 361 ; surrender of, 361 Dungannon, assizes at, 30 Dungannon Castle, seized by the rebels, 135 ; capture of, 271, 286 ; surrender of, 290 Dungiven Castle, surrender of, 268, 376 Dunluce Castle, 205, 262 Dunluce, Randal, Viscount, 62. See Antrim Dunseverick, 205 Dutch, provisions for Ireland, 296 EdgehiU, battle of, 276 Edinburgh, Covenant signed at, 72 Edmonstone, Captain, 162 Eglinton, Earl of, regiment, 233 n. Eikon Basilike, pamphlet, 360 Elizabeth, Queen, her parsimony, 69; annual expenditure, 69 Ellis, Major, 215 ; commands gar- rison at Camckfergus, 353 England, parliamentary revolt in, 92 ; League and Covenant |with Scotland, 297 Enniskillen, defence of, 145 ; re- volt in, 348 INDEX Episcopalian clergy, character of, 84 Erne, Lough, 147, 154 Erskine, Alexander, at Augher Castle, 191 Erskine, Sir James, 191 Erskine, Major, arrested, 347 Ewer, Colonel, attack on Drogheda, 366 Falkland.Viscount, his unpopularity, 74 ; recalled, 75 Fanad, 26 Farmenie, Mr., murdered, 141 Farney, 38 Farnham Castle, seized by the rebels, 149 Fennell, Colonel, 307 Fenwick, Colonel, at Lifford, 378; wounded at the battle of Scar- riffhollis, 378 Fermanagh, 9, 28 ; population, 6 ; distribution of land, 53 ; mas- sacres, 124 ; number killed, 148 ; extermination of the British, 249 Feudal system, suspension of, 4 ; abolition, 104, 106 Fews, the, 192 ; extermination of the British, 243 Finis, Margaret, on the number massacred at Kilmore, 244 Fingall, Lord, 134 ; prisoner at the battle of Rathmines, 365 Finn, river, 51; battle at, 288; Valley, 15 Fisher, Captain, at Lisburn, 180 Fitzwilliam, Sir William, redistri- bution of Monaghan, 38 Flemming, Captain, killed at the siege of Derry, 354 Folliott, Sir Henry, 26, 27 ; ad- vance on Tory Island, 32 ; Governor of Ballyshannon, 186 Folliott, Lord, Governor of Deny, 317 Forbes, Sir Archibald, 159 Fortescue, Sir Faithful, Governor of Drogheda, 168 Fotherly, Sir Thomas, 77 Foyle, the, 21, 190, 265, 378; fish- ing rights. 59 Fullerton, Robert, 166, 205 ; mur- dered, 176 Galbraith, Colonel, 287, 350; at the siege of Derry, 351 ; pri- soner, 352 ; wounded, 354 Galbraith, Sergeant-Major, 194 Ganally, massacre at, 112 Garvagh, 122 ; battle at, 213, 250 Garvin, Lieut., 209 Gauden, John, author of Eikon Basi- like, 350 Gavelkind, custom of, 45, 65 Gibbs, William, 155 Gibson, Captain, 169 Gibson, James, murdered, 179 Gilbert, J. S., Contemporary His- tory, 48 n., 96 n., 100 n., 222 n., 239 n., 310 n., 342 n., 359 n., 366 n. Glamorgan, Edward, Earl of, Gene- ralissimo of all the Forces, 320; powers conferred upon him, 320 ; in Ireland, 322 ; Treaty with the Supreme Council, 322 ; arrested, 323 ; Treaty with Rinuccini, 323 ; released, 323 Glasdromin House, 137 Glasslough, seized by the rebels, 139 Glenarm, burnt, 262 Glencairn, Earl of, regiment, 233 n. Glenconkein, 31 Glenmaquin, battle of, 190, 266, 269, 275 Glenravel Water, 206 Glenveagh, 26, 42 ; description of , 27 Glover, Adam, 151 Gordon, Lieut., killed, 19 Gore, Colonel, wounded at Scarriff- hollis, 378 Gore, Sir Ralph, 186 ; at Donegal, 187 ; at Raphoe, 265 Gormanston, Lord, 134 ; leader of the Pale Lords, 22 " Graces," meaning of the term, 74, 76 ; demand for the grant, 78 Graham, Major, arrested, 347, 352 Green, J. R., History of the English People, 121 Green, Thomas, escape, 237 Greig, Alice, deposition on the mas- sacres at Loughgall Church, 174 Greig, John and Richard, tortured, 174 Grenville, Sir Richard, in Dublin, 229 Grier, John, 196 Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, army, 44 Hall, Sir Charles, 10 Hamilton, Archibald, at Augher Castle, 191 Hamilton, Colonel, prisoner, 374 Hamilton, Sir Francis, 68, 150 ; defence of Keilagh Castle, 153 ; INDEX 891 illness, 159; surrender, 160; attack on Sligo, 315; at the Oxford Convention, 309 Hamilton, Sir Frederick, contro- versy with Sir W. Cole, 144, 185 ; character, 144; at Deny, 186; takes the Covenant, 299 Hamilton, James, 298 Hamilton, Sir James, 62. See Clandeboye Hamilton, Major, prisoner, 352 Hamilton, Sir William, change of religion, 267 Hammond, Colonel, Governor of Carisbrook Castle, 343 Hamskin, Jane, 123, 255 Hansard, Sir Richard, Governor of Lifford, 16 ; rebuilds it, 51 Harcourt, Sir Simon, 134, 201 Harding, Mary, murdered, 179 Harris, Mr., sub-Sheriff of Donegal, killed, 19 Harris, Walter, Hibernica, 42 n., 51 n., 52 n., 54 n., 99 n., 250 Harrison, Michael, 116, 136, 177, 244 Hart, Captain, Governor of Culmore Fort, 1 7 ; prisoner, 17; re- leased, 21 Hart, Mrs., 17, 21 Henderson, Colonel, killed, 374 Henderson, Hugh, 298 Henry VIII, on the tanistry sys- tem, 102 Herbert, Edward, Lord. See Glamorgan Hibernia Anglicana, 17, 273 n., 315 n., 336 n., 354 n. Hickson, Ireland in the Seventeenth Century, 76 n., 108 n., 118 n., 126 n., 206 n., 213 n. Hickson, Alice, on the massacres, 126 Higginson, Nathaniel, evidence on the massacres, 109, 151 High Commission Court, functions of, 82 Hjll, Colonel Arthur, at Belfast, 162, 298, 301 Hill, Rev. George, McDonnells of Antrim, 204, 205 n., 206 n., 262 n., 264 n. Hockley, 184 Hovedon, Alexander, in charge of British prisoners, 239; killed, 240 ; on the ruins of Armagh, 241 Hovedon, Catherine, 239 Hovedon, Charles, killed, 307 Hovedon, Henry, 239 Hovedon, Mrs., shelters British, 249 Hovedon, Robert, 99, 239 Hume, Colonel, regiment, 233 n. Hume, Sir John, case of, 74 Hume, Lady, surrenders Tully Castle, 196 Hunk, Colonel, regiment, 377 Inch, island of, 12 Inchiquin, raid on Cork, 305; his cruelty, 306 ; destruction in Mun- ster, 342; captures Drogheda, 361 Independent Party, 343, 345 Infants, torture of, 255 Inishowen, 15, 26 Ireland, borderers transferred to, 10 ; payment of subsidies, 74, 76, 78 ; Lords Justices on the burden of taxation, 79 ; list of thirty-seven petitions, 80 ; amendment referring to the Earl of Straff ord, 81 ; High Commis- sion Court, 82 ; two factions, 91 ; effect on history, 92-94 ; causes of the Rebellion of 1641, 95, 113 ; pre-war condition, 96 ; custom of the upper classes, 101 ; aboli- tion of the feudal system, 104, 106 ; system of exactions, 104 ; proclamation of the rebels, 108 ; massacres, 109; discontent of the upper classes, 119; famine of 1603, 120 ; plans for the revo- lution, 130 ; motives for the massacres, 157; duration of the rebellion, 275 Ireland, An Account of the Bloody Massacres in, 146 n., 256 Ireton, Henry, operations in Ire- land, 384 Irish, number sent to Sweden, 44 ; distaste for agricultural labour, 45, 96; hatred of the British colonists, 103, 109, 112, 257, 284 ; relations with the Pale Lords, 111 ; torture cattle, 192 ; proclamation of aims, 284 ; Par- liament, members, 310 Irish army at Carrickfergus, 86 ; refuses to embark for Spain, 87 ; disbanded, 87, 119 Irish children, cruelties, 255 Irish women, cruelties, 178, 255 Irvine, John, 209, 211 Isle of Wight, 343 Iveagh, Hugh, Lord, 62 Iveagh, Lady, character, 237 Iveagh, Sara, Lady, 239 892 INDEX Jacob, Sir Robert, estimate of the native population of Ulster, 6 James I, King, policy of concilia- tion, 3, 5, 73 ; attempt to im- port aliens, 10 ; decision in the case of the island of Inch, 13 ; colonisation of Ulster, 36 ; law against intermarriage, 67 ; prodi- gality, 69 ; methods of raising money, 70 ; death, 71 ; cost of his funeral, 71 Jones, Henry, 255 Jones, Colonel Michael, 333, 334 ; at the Oxford Convention, 309; Governor of Dublin, 335 ; in com- mand of the forces, 335 ; reviews the troops at Drogheda, 335 ; victory of Dungan Hill, 337 Jones, Sir Theophilus, in charge of Dungannon Castle, 272 ; surren- der, 286 ; Governor of Dun- gannon, 290 ; meeting at Bel- fast, 301 ; Governor of Kells, 333 ; prisoner, 333 ; negotia- tions with Owen Roe, 359 ; vic- tory of Rathmines, 364 ; Lough Oughter Castle delivered up to, 384 Julianstown, British defeat at, 214 Keilagh, Castle of, 154 ; assault on, 155; retaliatory raid, 158; siege, 159 ; sortie from, 159 ; surrender, 160 Kells, capture of, 333 Kennedy, Walter, 166; surrenders Oldstone Castle, 206 Kerdiff, Rev. John, deposition on the massacres, 198 Kernan, Lough, massacres at, 222, 250 Kilclooney, massacre at, 192 Kilkenny, Supreme Council at, 280, 281 ; consignments of war material, 282 ; surrender, 330 Killeevan, convention at, 235 KUleleagh, pillaged, 328 KUlesandra, 154 Killyman, massacres at, 240, 248 Kilmacrenan Castle, 51, 187 Kilmore, massacres at, 123, 183, 217, 244 Kilrush, British victory at, 275 Kilsalghen, defeat of the rebels at, 230 Kilwarlin woods, 233 Kinard, 29, 51 ; massacres at, 197, 225, 243 ; release of British pri- soners, 271 ; devastation, 360 King, Major, captures Emer Mc- Mahon, 378 King, Sir Robert, 316, 333 ; at the siege of Charlemont, 381 Kinsale, battle of, 7, 14 Kirby, Peter, deposition on the massacres at Belturbet, 155, 156 Knocknimy, 54, 100 Knocknoness, battle of, 339 Knox, Major, 346 Lagan Force, rescue work, 124 ; services rendered by, 124 ; self- supporting, 165 ; formation, 185 ; duties, 264 ; reconstitution, 265 ; victories, 268, 275, 288 ; record, 269; changes, 287; total strength, 288 ; memorandum to Parlia- ment, 313 ; refuse to obey Sir C. Coote, 314; grant to, 316; first reverse at Derry, 351 ; aban- don the siege, 356, 363 ; join the Cromwellians, 375 Laggan, Archie, murdered, 216 Laigheare, Lough, 382 Lambert, Sir Oliver, 24 Lame Castle, 167 Laud, Archbishop, 72 ; in the Tower, 78 Lawson, Robert, defence of Lia- burn, 162 Lawson, Sir Wilfrid, 10 Locale, Thomas, Lord, 62 Lecky, W. E. H., on the revolution of 1641, 93, 113, 117; weakness of his arguments, 120-125 ; on the massacres, 121-127 ; His- tory of England, 123 n., 127 n. Lee, Captain, 60 Leinster army, 285 Leland, John, 107 Leslie, General, 120 Leslie, John, Bishop of Raphoe, 356, 371 Letterkenny, 377 Ley, Mr., 43 Lifford, 20, 378; rebuilt, 51; evacuated, 376 Limavady, 58, 268 ; siege of, 376 Limitation, Act of, 129 Lindsay, Barnett, retaliatory mas- sacre at Templepatrick, 207, 209, 248 Lindsay, Lord, regiment, 233 n. Linen industry, 81, 96 Lisburn, 161 ; defence of, 163, 180; attack on, 181 ; battle of, 340 ; capture of, 353, 373 Lisgool, massacre at, 195 INDEX 893 Lisnaskea, massacre at, 147 Lissan, seized by the rebels, 189 ; massacre at, 215 Lockhart, Sir James, killed at the battle of Tandaragee, 287 Lodge, Desiderata Curiosa, 55 n., 120 n. London City Companies, land al- lotted to, 42, 58 ; suit against, 42, 77 Londonderry, County of, 59 ; mas- sacre in, 247 Loughgall Church, massacre in, 174 Loughgilly, massacre at, 192 Lough Oughter Castle, 272, 275, 384 Lowther, Sir Gerard, at the Oxford Convention, 309 Lowtherstown, 145 Lucas, Sir Thomas, at Belfast, 162 Ludlow, Account of the taking of Drogheda, 367 Luineach, Tirlough, 51, 98 Lurgan, massacre at, 172 Lynchull, John, 16 McArt, Art McBrian, surrender, 33 ; brigandage, 120 ; execu- tion, 277 Me Art, Tirlough, 24, 27 ; grant of land, 51 ; number of acres, 64 McBaron, Art, grant of land, 62 ; sons, 277 McBaron, Cormac, 12, 22 ; case of, 59 ; arrested, 60 McBrian, Cormac, murdered, 120 McBrian, Shane, sale of land, 7, 102 McCann, Neil, seizes Glasslough, 139 ; shelters British, 249 McCann, Toole, massacres, 172, 239 McCartan, Phelim, 6 McClelland, Lieut., killed at the siege of Deny, 354 McCroo, Patrick, number of vic- tims, 255 McDavitt, Phelim Reagh, 16; second in command of the rebels, 18; at Culmore, 21, 25; flight, 26 ; prisoner, 30 ; execution, 31 McDonnell, Alastair McCollkittagh, 1 66 ; victory at Bundooragh, 214 ; wounded at Glenmaquin, 266, 275; killed at Shrubhill, 267, 339 McDonnell, Donald Gonn, 204 McDonnell, Edmund, 142 McDonnell, James McCollkittagh, 166; treachery, 203, 206 ; deposi- tion on the massacres, 204 McDonnell, John, Ulster Civil Wars, 267 n. McDonnell, Sir Randal, 62 ; grant of land, 7. See Dunluce and An- trim McGilliduff, Doltagh, 16 McGillmartin, Donnell, 209 McHenry, John, 142 McHenry, Sir Tirlough, 9 McHenry, Tirlough, 240 ; fixed in- come, 46 ; grant of land, 52 McHugh, Neil, sale of land, 7, 102 McMahon, Art McBrian Savagh, 139; cruelty, 140 n. McMahon, Brian ne Savagh, 22 ; killed, 33 McMahon, Coll McBrian, 168; conducts siege of Drogheda, 227 McMahon, Emer McLoughlin, Bis- hop of Clogher, 119, 131, 200; leader of the Ulster army, 375 ; captures Castle Toome, 376 ; generalship, 376, 377, 380 ; op- position of his subordinates, 377 ; withdraws to Letterkenny, 377 ; defeat at Scarriffhollis, 378 ; prisoner, 378 ; execution, 380 ; good qualities, 380 McMahon, Hugh Oge, arrested, 131- 133 McMahon, Hugh Roe, execution, 38 McMahon, Neil McKenna, 138 McMahon, Captain Owen, killed, 170 McMahon, Patrick McLoughlin, 141 ; seizes Blayney Castle, 137 McMahon, Redmond, seizes Clones, 141 McNeil, Con, 6 ; sale of his estates, 102 McNeil, Daniel, 102 McO'Degan, Hugh, 112 McQuillan, Rory Oge, sale of land, 7, 102 McRory, Loughlin, hanged, 287 n. McRory, Thomas, 196 McShane, Con, grant of land, 54 McShane, Henry, 121 ; grant of land, 52, 98 McSkimmin, History of Carrick- fergus, 66 n., 166 n., 210 n., 211 n. McSweeney, Bishop of Kilmore, 375 McSweeney, Neil, 27 McToole, Phelim, 333 ; prisoner, 378 ; execution, 379 ; report of his death, 381 McVeagh, James, 215 Magee Island, 7; retaliatory mas- sacre at, 209 ; number killed, 211 INDEX Magennis, Sir Con, 97, 137, 162 withdraws from Lisburn, 163 captures Dromore, 164 ; mas- sacre at Newcastle, 237 Magennis, Daniel, 164, 237 Magennis, Hugh, 62. See Iveagh Magennis, Hugh, Constable oi Newry Castle, surrender, 234 Magennis, Lady, prisoner, 234, 239 Magherastephana, 54, 100 Magilligan, battle of, 268 Maguire, Brian, Baron, 9 ; grant of land, 53 Maguire of Tempo, Brian, courage and loyalty of, 147 ; escapes to Enniskillen, 147; on the massacre at Tully Castle, 197; shelters British, 249 Maguire, Connor, Baron, case of, 99; character, 99 ; grievance against England, 104; confession, 118, 130; arrested, 131, 133 Maguire, Connor Roe, 9, 97 ; con- cession of land, 54, 100 ; annuity, 100, 101, 102 Maguire, Cuconnaught, 53 Maguire, Donough, Castle of, gar- rison killed, 194 Maguire, Hugh, killed, 53 Maguire, Hugh, killed at Scarriff- hollis, 378 Maguire, Patrick Oge, 142 Maguire, Rory, 97 ; failure of his plot, 143 ; treachery, 143 ; mas- sacres, 145-147, 195, 196; his cruelty, 145-147 ; failure of his attack on Aghentain, 193; de- feated, 197 ; killed, 383 n. Marshall, John, 211 Marston Moor, battle of, 305, 321 Massacres of 1641, 91, 142, 146, 172, 183, 197, 198, 200, 207, 215- 218, 238, 242; depositions on, 125 Matchett, Ellen, escape, 183 Matthews, Colonel, 163; defence of Dromore, 164; at Belfast, 167; Governor of Newry, 296 ; defies R. Monro, 303 Mattier, Captain, 352 Maxwell, Grizel, murdered, 175, 243 Maxwell, James, murdered, 175,243 Maxwell, Dr. Robert, 192, 244, 251 Mayo, Earl of, 130 Meath, 302 ; depredations at, 328 Mellifont, 168; capture of, 169 Mercer, Mr., murdered, 192 Meredith, Major, A Relation of Several. Services, 370 n. Meredith, Sir Robert, 333 Mervyn, Colonel Audley, leader of the Lagan Force, 118, 187; on the number rescued, 124 ; relief of Augher Castle, 194 ; tribute to the Lagan Force, 269 ; meet- ing at Belfast, 298 ; his regiment takes the Covenant, 299 ; Gover- nor of Derry, 300 ; deposed, 316; arrested, 347 ; escape, 352 ; re- joins the Lagan Force, 352 ; at the siege of Charlemont, 381 Mervyn, Sir Henry, 187 Milk-tithe, 84 Minterburn, 240 Monaghan, population, 6 ; posi- tion, 9 ; case of, 9, 37 ; exclusion from the Plantation scheme, 38 ; seized by the rebels, 137 ; feast at, 141 n. ; massacres, 199, 248 Monck, Colonel George, in Dublin, 229 ; Commander-in-Chief in Ul- ster, 335 ; treatment of Monro, 346 ; seizes Belfast, 346 ; at Cole- raine, 347 ; evacuates Lisburn, 353 ; terms with Owen Roe, 360, 362 Monea Castle, massacre at, 1 95 ; fate of, 197 Moneymore, 58 ; seized by the rebels, 188; massacre at, 216; British prisoners released, 274 Mongavlin Castle, 20 Monro, Sir George joins the Carrick- fergus army, 325 ; leaves Ulster, 346 ; at the siege of Derry, 352, 355 ; captures towns, 353 ; siege of Carrickfergus, 353 ; attempt to recapture Sligo, 353 ; with- drawal from Derry, 363 ; evacu- ates Coleraine, 373 ; captures Antrim, 373 ; escape, 374 ; sur- renders Enniskillen, 375 Monro, General Sir Robert, at Car- rickfergus, 233, 261, 287; Des- patch, 234 n. ; expedition to Antrim, 262 ; at Dunluce, 263 ; Armagh, 271, 307, 325; defeats Owen Roe, 286; declines to be bound by the Cessation, 293 ; " New Scots " army, 294 ; recall of his army, 295 ; rescinded, 296 ; takes the Covenant, 299 ; Commander-in-Chief of the Ulster Forces, 301 ; march to Belfast, 301 ; at Newry, 302 ; intercepts supplies, 307 ; at the battle of Benburb, 326; flight, 327; in- ability to help Ormonde, 331, 332 ; refuses to part with guns, INDEX 395 345 ; arrested, 346 ; sent to the Tower, 346 Montgomery, Bishop of Derry, rapacity of, 58 Montgomery, Sir James, ordered to raise a regiment, 165 ; meet- ing at Belfast, 298, 301 Montgomery, Lord, at Coomber Castle, 161 ; meeting at Belfast, 298, 301 Montgomery, Lord, at the battle of Benburb, 326 ; prisoner, 327 ; takes Carrickfergus, 353, 355 ; Commander-in-Chief of all the Forces, 354, 356 ; at the siege of Derry, 354, 355 ; withdrawal, 363; rout of his forces, 374; flight, 374 Montgomery, Mrs., 19, 27 ; on the number massacred at Carrick- macross, 201 Moore, Sir Garrett, 290 Moore, Lord, defence of Drogheda, 168 ; killed at Portlester, 290 Moore, Roger, plans for a revolu- tion, 118, 129; negotiations, 130 Morris, George, 222 Moryson, Fynes, Itinerary, 66, 120 Mountgarret, Lord, President of the Supreme Council, 283 Mountjoy, Lord-Lieut, of Ireland. 13 Mountjoy fort seized by the rebels, 135, 272 Mourne Mountains, 256, 267, 376 Mulhollan, Warr of Ireland, 208, 223, 288 Mullaghbrack, massacre at, 192 Mullingar, Irish defeat at, 286 Multifarnham edict, 106-109 Munster, 341 Muskerry, Lord, at the Oxford Convention, 309 Naas, capture of, 336 Nalson, historian, 92, 93 Naseby, battle of, 321 Naul, Thomas, escape, 241 Neagh, Lough, 376 ; fishing, 59 Newburn, battle of, 72, 86 Newcastle, massacre at, 237 Newcomen, Sir Robert, 187 Newry, 296, 302; seized by the rebels, 137 ; capture of, 234 ; executions at, 234, 236 ; surren- der, 370 Newtown, 185 Newtownbutler, conference at, 360 Newtowncunningham, seized, 351 Newtownstewart, 189 ; seized, 347 Nonconformists, warrant to arrest, 82 Norton Castle, 167, 209 Oath of Supremacy, enforcement, 83, 85 Oblivion, Act of, 310 O'Brien, Dermot, at the Oxford Convention, 309 O'Cahan, Connack Reagh, 205 O'Cahan, Daniel, 289 ; prisoner, 290 ; shot, 290 O'Cahan, Sir Donnell, 9 ; trial, 33 ; imprisoned in the Tower, 34, 56, 58 ; death, 35 ; record, 57 ; case of, 59 O'Cahan, Manus, siege of Arta- garvey House, 203 ; massacre, 240 ; in Co. Londonderry, 267 ; de- feated at Magilligan, 268, 275; prisoner, 268 ; execution, 268 O'Cahan, Rory, rebellion, 59 ; exe- cution, 60 O'Cahan, Shane Carragh, 22 ; exe- cution, 30, 31 O'Cahan, Tirlough Oge, treachery, 203 O'Connell, Hugh, Governor of Armagh, 238 O' Connelly, Owen, discloses rebel plot, 132,297; at Dublin, 133,273; sent to London, 133 ; killed, 133, 373 ; in command of Antrim, 373 O'Connor, Rev. Dr., on the mas- sacres, 126 O'Dogherty, Brian McCoyne, 16 O'Dogherty, Sir Cahir, 9 ; rebellion, 11, 12, 16-21; position, 12, 14; grievance in the case of the island of Inch, 12, 14 ; interview with James I, 13 ; evil influence of Neil Garv O'Donnell, 16 ; cap- tures Culmore Fort, 16 ; Derry, 18 ; releases his prisoners, 21 ; failure of his rebellion, 21, 26; flight, 21, 28 ; retreat to Glen- veagh, 26, 27 ; return to Dogh Castle, 29 ; killed, 30 O'Dogherty, Daniel, 16 O'Dogherty, Lady, 16; surrenders, 27 O'Donnell, Calvagh, 14 O'Donnell, Hugh Roe, 12, 14; flight to Spain, 14, 60; rebel- lion, 50 O'Donnell, Nachten, 25, 34, 50 O'Donnell, Neil Garv, 9, 14 ; char acter, 15; arrested, 15, 29; 896 INDEX breaks his parole, 15 ; evil in- fluence on Cahir O'Dogherty , 1 6 division of the spoil at Derry, 20 seizes the Lifford cattle, 21 overtures from Sir A. Chichester 25 ; treacherous conduct, 28 trial, 33 ; sent to the Tower, 34 death, 35 O'Donnell, Rory, Earl of Tyrconnell 15; treasonable plots, 15, 16 flight, 15 O'Donnell, Shane McManus Oge, 21, 27 ; escape to Tory Island, 30, 31 ; flight to Arran Island, 32 O'Gallagher, Constable of Tory Island, surrender, 32 O'Hagan, Cormac, seizes Money- more, 1 88 ; victory at Garvagh, 213; humanity, 216; killed, 289 O'Hagan, Daniel, 202; saves British, 248 O'Hagan, Shane, in charge of Castle Toome, 376 ; surrender, 377 ; prisoner, 378 ; execution, 379 O'Hanlon, Sir Oghie, 9 ; grant of land, 52 ; sale of Orior, 102 O'Hanlon, Oghie Oge, 22 ; sur- render, 33 O'Hara, Brian, number of victims, 255 O'Hara, Rory, 287 O'Hara, Toole McHugh, 206 O'Hugh, Edmund, imprisoned, 176 O'Hugh, Edmund Boy, kills Lord Caulfield, 225 Oldstone Castle, 165, 205; mas- sacre at, 206 Omagh, 24, 185 O'Mellan, Friar, vi O'More, Rory, plans for a revolu- tion, 129. See Moore O'Muldoon, Philip, 196 O'Mullan, Garny, 209 O'Murphy, Owen, massacre at Carrickmacross, 201 O'Neil, Alice, 207. See Antrim O'Neil, Art Oge, killed, 307 O'Neil, Brian Crossach, 59; exe- cution, 60 O'Neil, Catherine, 240; her son, 240 O'Neil, Con Oge, murdered, 289 O'Neil, Daniel, 371 O'Neil, Henry, shelters British, 137, 192, 240, 243, 249 O'Neil, Colonel Henry, vi ; " Rela- tion," 250, 379 O'Neil, Sir Henry Oge, 9 O'Neil, Sir Henry Oge, joins forces at Omagh, 24 ; murdered, 26, 99; grant of land, 51, 98 ; division of his lands, 99 O'Neil, Henry Roe, 333 ; charge of cowardice, 377 ; prisoner, 378 ; execution, 379 O'Neil, Neil Modder, massacre of Armagh, 241 ; in charge of Dun- gannon, 286 ; Constable of Charle- mont, 383 O'Neil, Nial, surrender, 290; at Charlemont, 290 ; Constable of Charlemont, 383 O'Neil, Owen Roe, interviewed by Moore, 129; lands at Lough Swilly, 253, 277 ; serves in the Spanish Army, 278; Commander- in-Chief, 278; horror at the mas- sacres, 278 ; temperament, 279 ; military abilities, 279 ; integrity, 279 ; reason for his failure, 280, 289, 372; hostility of the Su- preme Council, 280, 281, 372 ; position of subsidiary ally, 284 ; patriotism, 285 ; Governor of Ulster, 285 ; captures Dun- gannon, 286 ; defeated, 286, 288, 340 ; inaction, 287, 328 ; force, 288 ; protest against the Cessa- tion, 293 ; at Neath, 302 ; declines to take a subordinate position, 303 ; illness, 307, 371 ; at Charlemont, 307 ; quarrel with Castlehaven, 307 ; ravages of his men, 324 ; Captain-General of the Irish forces in Ulster, 325 ; victory of Benburb, 326-328 ; withdraws to Leinster, 328 ; re- lations with the Supreme Council, 329 ; offer from Rinuccini, 329 ; captures Roscrea, 330 ; hatred of Preston, 331 ; siege of Dublin, 331, 334 ; retreat, 333 ; captures Kells, 333 ; sent to Connaught, 335 ; recalled, 337 ; destruction of food, 338 ; charges against, 338 ; deposed, 339 ; withdraws to Munster, 341 ; proclaimed a traitor, 342 ; negotiations with Jones and Ormonde, 359, 371 ; overtures from Coote, 360, 362 ; terms with Monck, 360, 362; loss of his powder, 361 ; retires to Clones, 361 ; entry into Deny, 363 ; death, 372 ; character, 372 O'Neil, Sir Phelim, character, 97 ; indebtedness to the English Gov- INDEX 897 eminent, 98 ; restoration of lands, 99 ; forges a commission from the King, 116, 118, 383; un- prepared to seize Deny, 130 ; seizes Charlemont Castle, 135 ; proclamation at Armagh, 1 36 ; captures Mellif ont, 1 69 ; mur- ders his creditors, 1 75 ; mean- ness, 177 ; ineffective protection of the British, 177; attack on Lisburn, 180 ; defeated, 181, 191, 229, 266 ; rage and frenzy, 182, 191, 192 ; at Strabane, 182, 266 ; attack on Augher, 192 ; offer to convoy British prisoners, 221 ; at Charlemont, 267, 275 ; house at Kinard burnt, 271 ; at Brantry, 272 ; fleet of boats cap- tured, 273 ; hatred of Owen Roe, 278; marriage, 283, 382; flight, 378 ; surrender, 381 ; hiding-place, 382 ; captured, 382 ; execution, 383 ; character, 383 O'Neil, Phelim McArt Brian, mas- sacres convoy of British, 222 O'Neil, Phelim McToole, 381 O'Neil, Phelim Oge, grant of land, 25 O'Neil, Philip McHugh, treachery, 382 O'Neil, Shane, 24, 97; name of his fort, 112; death, 130 O'Neil, Shane, killed at Scarriff- hollis, 378 O'Neil, Tirlough McArt, 9 O'Neil, Tirlough McBrian, 243 O'Neil, Tirlough Oge, death, 52, 99 O'Neil, Tirlough Oge, 97 ; seizes Glasslough, 139 ; Governor of Armagh, 141, 238; attack on Antrim, 215 Oneilan, 51 O'Quin, Neil Oge, seizes Mount- joy, 135; seizes Lissan, 189; massacres, 215, 216; flight, 272 O'Quin, Tirlough Grome, massacre in Blackwater Church, 243 O'Reilly, Catherine Oge, kindness to the English, 157 O'Reilly, Edmund, 152 ; chief of Cavan, 55 ; defeated at Crough- an, 154 O'Reilly, Hugh, Genuine History of Ireland, 210 O'Reilly, Sir John, 55 O'Reilly, Mulmore, grant of land, 55 ; seizes Farnham Castle, 149 ; assault on Keilagh, 155 O'Reilly, Owen McTirlough, hu- manity, 152 O'Reilly, Philip, at Lough Oughter Castle, 384 ; pardoned, 384 O'Reilly, Philip McHugh, treatment of the British, 149-151 ; indigna- tion at the massacres, 156, 158 O'Reilly, Philip Mulmore, killed, 374 O'Reilly, Rose ny Neil, brutal char- acter, 156 Orior, 52, 65 Ormonde, James, Duke of, Com- mander-in-Chief of the army, 86, 230 ; alliance with the rebels, 92 ; advance north, 229-232 ; at Drogheda, 230 ; return to Dub- lin, 231 ; intrigues with the Irish, 231 ; victory at Kilrush, 275 ; cessation of hostilities, 291 ; alliance with the Supreme Coun- cil, 292, 294, 329; created Marquis, 293 ; Lord-Lieut, of Ireland, 293; furnishes Castle- haven with provisions, 304 ; difficulty of his position, 318 ; defence of Dublin, 331 ; refuses to surrender, 332 ; refuses to admit parliamentary troops, 333 ; surrender, 334 ; sails for Eng- land, 334 ; lands at Cork, 348 ; assumes control of the Supreme Council at Kilkenny, 348, 358 ; characteristics, 358 ; negotia- tions with Owen Roe, 359, 371 ; defeat at Rathmines, 363, 364 ; destruction of his army, 365 Ormsby, Captain, 315 O'Togher, Philip, 155 Oxford, Convention at, 309 ; char- acter of the Irish demands, 310 ; members reassemble in Dublin, 312, 318 Pale, Lords of the, 110; relations with the Irish, 111 ; neutrality, 134 ; join the rebels, 134 Parker, Edward, prisoner, 152 Parliamentary troops, refused ad- mission to Dublin, 333 ; return to, 334 Parsons, Sir William, 46; Lord Justice, 78 Paulett, Sir George, Governor of Deny, 13 ; unpopularity, 14 ; lax rule, 18; killed, 19 Paulett, Lady, 19 ; onboard H.M.S. Tramontane, 27 INDEX Pennington, Charles, 10 Perkins, Captain, 135; on the number massacred at Armagh, 240, 242 Perrot, Sir John, on the evils of the tanistry system, 101 Petty, Sir William, on the causes of the Rebellion of 1641, 95 ; on the number of British massacred, 246 Philadelphia Papers, 58 n., 100 n. Phillips, Captain, 376 Phillips, Sir Thomas, grant of land, 58 Piggott, Captain, killed, 379 Pike, Roger, " Narrative," 207, 235 Ploughing by the tail, imposition of a fine, 49 Plunket, Colonel, 180 Plunkett, Nicholas, President of the Supreme Council, 283 ; at the Oxford Convention, 309 Ponsonby, Major, in charge of Dundalk, 370 Portadown Bridge, massacres at, 198, 222 ; number drowned, 223 Portlester, Irish victory at, 290 Portna, massacre at, 204 PortneUigan, 98 Poyntz, Sir Charles, prisoner, 137 ; released, 234 ; in charge of Car- lingford, 261 Prendagast, J. P., 116 Presbyterians, Scottish, settle in Ireland, 67 ; revolt, 72 ; perse- cutions, 82 ; refuse to take the Oath of Supremacy, 83 ; religious views, 84 ; scheme to drive out, 87 ; dislike of the Parliament, 343 ; protest against the execu- tion of Charles I, 349 Preston, Colonel Sir Thomas, at Wexford, 282 ; Commander-in- Chief of the Leinster army, 285 ; defeated, 286, 337 ; hatred of Owen Roe, 331 ; siege of Dublin, 331,334; retreat, 333 ; captures Naas, 336 ; raises the siege of Trim, 336 ; flight to Carlow, 337 ; Governor of Kilkenny, 337, 342 Price, Elizabeth, evidence on the massacres, 109 ; on the cruelty of Irish women, 178; witnesses the murder of her five children, 223, 255 ; cruel treatment, 253 Price, Captain Ruys, murdered, 1 76, 223 Priests, influence on the massacres, 219 Pugh, Ensign, murdered, 135 Puritans, the, revolt, 72 Pynnar, Captain Nicholas, Survey, 40, 54, 55, 60 Radclyffe, Sir George, 82, 83, 119; Straff ord, 166n. Rathmines, defeat at, 363, 364 Rawdon, Sir George, at Lisburn, 181 ; wounded, 182 ; meeting at Belfast, 301 ; at the skirmish of Dromore, 306 Rawdon Papers, 251, 262 Reaper, Captain, killed, 373 Redman, Mrs., murdered, 145 Redman, Thomas, hanged, 145 Reeves, Stephen, murdered by boys, 255 Reid, vi, 93 ; History of the Presby- terian Church, 77 n., 82 n., 83 n. Reid, Paul, 137 Relinquishment, Act of, 129 Reynolds, Colonel, 363 Richelieu, Cardinal, assistance to Ireland, 280, 282 Ridgeway, Sir Thomas, 26 ; pursues Sir Cahir O'Dogherty, 27 ; sur- vey of the counties, 40 ; pro- spectus, 43 Rinuccini, Giovanni, Papal Nun- cio in Ireland, 322 ; Treaty with Glamorgan, 323 ; Memoirs, 324 n. ; offer to Owen Roe, 329 ; entry into Kilkenny, 330 ; Presi- dent of the Council, 330 ; rup- ture, 342 Roberts, Dr., Ulster King at Arms, 330 Rochelle, expeditions to, 71 Roe Castle, captured, 269 Roe, Sir Francis, 30 ; grant of land, 53 Roman Catholic Bishops, General Assembly of, at Kilkenny, con- demnation of the massacres, 220, 221 Roman Catholic Church, in favour of a humane revolution, 106, 107 Roman Catholics, Irish, " Remon- strances," 309, 310 Roper, Sergeant- Major, 171 Roscommon, Plantation of, 10 Roscrea, capture of, 330 Ross, Captain, arrested, 347 Rowley, Colonel Edward, 165; at Coleraine, 213 ; defeated at Gar- vagh, 213 ; killed, 214 Ruchan Lough, 382 Rump Parliament, 345 INDEX 399 Rupert, Prince, victories, 321 ; de- feated at Marston Moor, 321 Rushworth, John, vi, 72, 93, 337 Russell, Sir William, 55 Ryves, Captain, 150, 153 S. R. Politician's Catechism, 210 St. John, Captain, Constable of Tan- daragee, escape, 137 ; wounded, 182 St. John, Sir Oliver, 43, 57 ; Lord Deputy of Ireland, 65 St. Leger, Sir Anthony, 43 St. Leger, Sir William, Sergeant- Major, 86 Sandeford, Constable of Charle- mont, 383 Saunderson, Colonel, 287 ; relief of Augher, 194 ; occupies Sligo, 353 ; ordered to rejoin the Lagan Force, 354 ; abandons the siege of Derry, 356 ; killed, 374 Scarriffhollis, battle of, 378 Scarva Bridge, massacres at, 125, 222, 235, 239 Scotland, The Solemn League and Covenant with England, 297 Scots, the, revolution, 72 ; modera- tion, 72 ; exemption from the massacres in Ulster, 117, 118 " Servitors," 41-43 ; rents, 41, 75 Sexton, Sir George, 183 Shannoth House, massacre at, 146 Sheridan, Denis, 153 Shirley, History of Monaghan, 253 n. Shrubhill, battle of, 267 Sidley, Sir Ralph, 11 Simpson, Nicholas, 139, 178; pri- soner, 220, 238 ; on the massacre at Armagh, 241, 242 Sinclair, Colonel, at Newry, 261 Sinclair, Lord, regiment, 233 n. Skelton, William, 198, 244 Sligo, siege, 315; captured, 315; attempt to recapture, 353 Sloper, Captain, killed at Scarriff- hollis, 378 Smith, Ann, massacre at her cot- tage, 123, 217 ; escape, 217 Smith, Captain, released, 234 Somers's Historical Tracts, 92 n., 113 n., 264 n. Spence, John, murdered, 205 Sperrin Mountains, 268, 273 Spottiswoode, Sir Henry, 137 Staples, Lady, at Moneymore Castle, 188 ; account of the massacre, 216 Staples, Sir Thomas, grant of land, 58 ; desertion of his wife, 188 Stewart, Sir Alexander, commands Lagan Force, 350 ; resignation, 352 ; killed, 352 Stewart, Archibald, defence force, 165; regiment, 203 ; defeated at Bundooragh, 214 Stewart, Henry, fines imposed on, 84 Stewart, Sir Robert, 33 ; Com- mander-in-Chief of the Lagan Force, 44, 115, 187, 288 ; ordered to raise a regiment, 165, 185 ; at Newtown, 186 ; relief of Ballykelly, 268; of Coleraine, 269 ; elected Governor of Derry, 289; meeting at Belfast, 298, 301 ; regiment takes the Cove- nant, 299 ; march to Connaught, 325 ; at Culmore Fort, 347 ; arrested, 347 ; escape, 352 ; re- joins the Lagan Force, 352 Stewart, William, murdered, 179 Stewart, Sir William, Castle at Kil- macrenan, 51 ; achievements of his regiment, 166; at Raphoe, 186 ; leader of the Lagan Force, 187 ; regiment takes the Cove- nant, 299 ; at the Oxford Con- vention, 309 Strabane, 182, 266 ; captured, 267 Strabane, Lady, 183 Strafford, Thomas, Earl of, Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland, 67, 77 ; exe- cution, 78, 87 ; Preamble to the Subsidy Act, 80 ; amendment, 81 ; unpopularity, 81 ; influ- ence on the linen trade, 81 ; hostility to the Scottish Presby- terians, 82 ; enforcement of the Black Oath, 83 ; recruiting cam- paign, 86 ; scheme to drive out the Presbyterians, 87 ; criticism of the Irish, 103 Stratford, Anthony, on the number massacred, 208, 224, 255; on the number killed at Killyman, 248 Subsidies, payment of, 74, 76, 78 ; reduction, 129 Swilly, Lough, 13, 253, 277 Taafe, Lord, raises an army, 294, 315 ; siege of Sligo, 315 ; routed, 315 ; defeated at Knocknoness, 338 Taafe, Thomas, 139 27 400 INDEX Talbot, Sir Robert, at the Oxford Convention, 309 Tandaragee, seized by the rebels, 137; massacre at, 238; battle at, 287 Tanistry system, 98, 101 Taylor, Captain, killed, 377 Taylor, Philip, on the number drowned at Portadown, 224 Taylor, William, 222 Temple, Irish Bebellion, 93, 94 n., 129 n., 133 n., 152 n. Templepatrick, massacres at, 202, 209 ; number killed, 212 Tenure, fixity of, 45 Thornton, Col. Robert, Mayor of Deny, 186, 288 ; meeting at Belfast, 298 Tichborne, Sir Henry, 160 ; Gover- nor of Drogheda, 169 ; defence, 228 ; captures Dundalk, 232 Tirkennedy, 54, 100 Toome Castle, 58 ; capture of, 376 ; recaptured, 377 Tory Island, 30, 31 ; capture of, 33 Tramontane*,, H.M.S., 27 Trevor, Sir Edward, prisoner, 137 ; released, 234 Trevor, Lieut., 236; murdered, 237 Trevor, Colonel Mark, raid at Drog- heda, 228 ; captures ammuni- tion, 361 ; Governor of Dundalk, 362 ; attack at Dromore, 370 Trim, British victory at, 275; siege 336 Tuam, Bishop of, killed, 316; document discovered on his body 316, 322 Tullahogue, 273 ; massacre at, 248 Tully Castle, massacre at, 196 Tulske, capture of, 315 Turner, Sir James, 234 ; Memoirs of, 195 n., 234 n., 236 n., 261, 276 n., 286 n., 296 n. Tutch, Mr., 236; murdered 237 250 Tynan, massacre at, 244 Tyrconnell, Rory, Earl of, flight 3, 50, 60 Tyringham, Sir Arthur, Governor of Newry, escape, 137 ; at Lis- burn, 161, 180; Belfast, 162 Tyrone, 9, 64 ; population, 6 ; dis- tribution of land, 51 ; exter- mination of the British in, 248 Tyrone, Hugh, Earl of, flight, 3, 60, 239 ; submission, 3, 5 ; rumours of his return, 22 Ulster, economic conditions, 3 ; suspension of the feudal system, 4 ; increase in the population, 5, 63 ; sale of lands, 7 ; colonisa- tion policy, 8, 36 ; British colon- ists, 8, 37, 67 ; hostile influences, 9 ; the six escheated counties, 38 ; removal of the dominant chiefs, 39 ; division in lots, 41 ; prospectus for the acquisition of land, 43 ; commissioners, 43 ; unprofitable lands, 44 ; hostility of the chiefs, 46 ; Plantation, result, 60, 62, 67 ; adherence to old customs, 65 ; law against intermarriage, 67 ; linen trade, 81 ; Oath of Supremacy, 83, 85 ; number of British massacred, 247 ; food shortage, 295 ; officers forbidden to take the Covenant, 298; conquest of, 384 Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 143 n., 146 n., 181 n., 207 n., 235 n._ 239 n., 279 n. Undertakers, 41-43 ; rents, 41, 75 Upton, Captain, 209 Usher, Captain, prisoner, 370 Usher, Dr., Primate, 85 Vane, Sir Henry, 114, 345 Vaughan, Captain, surrenders at Derry , 19; in charge of Derry 25, 30 Vaughan, Sir John, Governor of Derry, 186, 266, 269 ; death, 289 Vaughan, Sir William, killed, 364 Veagh, Lough, 27 Venables, Colonel, 363 ; at Newry, 370 ; skirmish at Dromore, 370 ; Governor of Ulster, 378 ; siege of Charlemont, 381 Verney, Sir Edmund, killed at the siege of Drogheda, 366 Villiers, Major, taken prisoner, 370 Walsh, Father, on the massacres, 126 Wandesford, Deputy in Ireland, 78 Ward, Luke, hanged, 139 Warner, Ferdinando, 123 Warr of Ireland, 202, 208 n., 214 n. 215 n., 223, 224 n., 248 n., 264 n. 273 n., 274, 287 n., 288, 289 n. 294 n., 302 n., 328 n., 333, 337 n. 340 n., 346, 353 n., 373 n., 375 n. 376 n., 377 n., 381 n., 382 n. Warren, Colonel, killed at the siege of Drogheda, 366 INDEX 401 Waterdrum, massacre at, 146 Watson, Mr., murdered, 179 Weir, John, 298 Wemys, Sir Patrick, 171, 361 Wentworth, Sir Thomas, 67 ; Lord- Deputy of Ireland, 75 ; policy, 75 ; demands subsidies, 76 ; created Earl of Strafiord, 77 Westmeath, Earl of, taken pri- soner, 337 Western Marches, or Borderlands, 10 Wexf ord, detention of war material, 281 ; massacre at, 368 Whitelocke, Memorials, 70 n., 113 n., 315 n., 316 n., 347 n., 352 n., 357 n., 361 n., 364 n., 365 n., 368 n., 376 n., 379 n. Whitfield, Sir Ralph, 77 Whittaker, Life of Badclyffe, 87 n. Whyte, Captain, Constable of Charlemont, 383 Windebank, death, 87 Winkfield, Sir Richard, Marshal, joins forces at Omagh, 24 ; ad- vance on Culmore, 25 Wishaw, Captain, in charge of Stra- bane, 267 Wollard, William, murdered, 242 " Woodkerne," or brigands, 47 YeUowford, battle of, 55 FEINTED BY HA.ZELL, WATSON AND VINET, LD., LONDON AND AYLESBXJRY, ENGLAND. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. AU6101968 AUG I L9-Series 444 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY A 000 029 499