THE UNIVERSITY Ot' ILLINOIS LIBRARY , From the collection of James Collins, Drumcondra, Ireland, Purchased, 1918. Or6b UNIVERSITY LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN The person charging this material is responsible for its renewal or return to the library on or before the due date. The minimum fee for a lost item is $ 125 . 00 , $ 300.00 for bound journals. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. Please note: self-stick notes may result in torn pages and lift some inks. Renew via the Telephone Center at 217-333-8400, 846-262-1510 (toll-free) or circlib@uiuc.edu. Renew online by choosing the My Account option at: http://www.library.uiuc.edu/catalog/ APR 1 200tj THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH IN IRELAND. BY CANON O’ROURKE, P.P., M.R.T.A., autfjor of ‘‘the history of the great IRISH FAMINE OF 1847 ,” “the centenary life of o’connell,” etc. “ Take resolutely to the study of Irish History.” Rt. Hon, W. E. Gladstone, M.P. SJulJim: JAMES DUFFY AND SONS, 14 AND 15 Wellington Quay. 1887. DUBLIN : |lxinltb 6bmuub aub (^o., 61 & 62 Great Strand Street. Microfilm PJegative # ‘^S'0>5Z0 Humanities Preser/ation Project •V % t ■( S41.5 Or ^ PREFACE. The title of tliis volume may be taken as an epitome of its contents. The Battle of the Faith in Ireland has been long and varied . It extends from the day the apostate friar, George Browne, Avas intruded into the See of Dublin, until the Catholics had grown so numerous, that it was no longer safe to keep them in bondage ; for it is only Avithin the last feAv years that any English statesman even pretended to make them concessions from motives of justice. They ought to be grateful, and no doubt are very grateful, that Avithin the present generation, England’s greatest orator and statesman has laboured heart and soul to make atonement for their past wrongs, by vAUse and enlightened legislation. In projecting this work, the Author did not intend it to be anything approaching a complete history of Ireland for the period it treats of. His object Avas to cull from the materials before him such historical facts as, on the one hand, Avould serve to show the wily astuteness and unflagging energy Avith which the enemies of the Catholic Faith carried on their work, and on the other, the continuous battle that Av^as Avaged against them — a battle sometimes AA^ell planned and successful — often desultory , ill directed, and ending in disaster, but neA^er abandoned> So that during this lengthened period, Ireland might be correctly described by ^^^(gt^^ressive motto of the IV PREFACE. O’Gradys — VulnePvAtus non Yictus — often defeated but still unsubdued. As the Author proceeded with his work, he sometimes found it difficult to settle how much of the general history ought to be introduced. As a rule he elected to admit as much of it as the nature of his plan would permit, both for information sake, and to add interest to his narrative. The great leading events have been fully and carefully dealt with, such as the Plantation of Munster and Ulster, the war of 1641, the battles of Benburb and Kathmines, Cromwelhs career in Ireland, the two sieges of Limerick, &c. These were real battles in the military sense, but there were others of a different kind, fought more per- sistently and with quite as much danger to Catholic Faith, namely, the battles of Legislation, of Education, and of Proselytism : to these the Author has devoted as much space as he had at his command. The trial was long and severe, but the children of God^s Church in Ireland have come out of the fiery furnace, unscathed and triumphant. The Author begs to tender his grateful thanks to the gentlemen who kindly put this volume through the Press, when he, on account of illness, was unable to give it his attention. St. Mary's, Maynooth, 1st December j 1886. CONTENTS CHAPTER I. Page. Introduction — First perverts, Earl of Ossory and Lord Butler — Their immediate promotion — Henry VIII. appoints George Browne Archbishop of Dublin on the death of Archbishop Allen — Staples of Meath (note) — The flag of Ireland the flag of Catho- licity — George Browne’s episcopate a failure — His opinion of the Irish people — Staples — Lord Deputy, Leonard Gray — Browne’s complaints to Thomas Cromwell — The King’s contempt for him — His slavish meanness — The Act permitting the clergy to marry — Its spirit and tenor — Eulogium on celibacy — Primate Dowdall — Mary becomes queen — Her government in Ireland — Protestant historians on Mary’s restoration of Catholicity — Henry’s bishops deprived — Lord Deputy Sussex (note) — Henry’s first scruples about his marriage with Catherine (note) — Elizabeth’s accession. — Persecuting laws — The Irish Parliament of 15|^ — Its constitu- tion — Its terrible enactments — “ Plantation of Munster” — The Earl of Desmond — Frivolous charges brought against him — He is confined in the Tower of London — Anecdote of him (note) — Lord Deputy Sydney — His high-minded conduct in regard to Des- mond — Desmond’s vast possessions coveted for an English Plan- tation — Younger sons of English gentlemen to be undertakers — Irish not to be employed in any capacity — The Plantation not a success — Position of priests — Sydney’s dispatch from Munster to England — Connaught in Elizabeth’s time — Catholics of the Pale — The Geraldines — Fitton — Bingham, . , . 1 CHAPTER 11. Catholicity in Ulster — Elizabeth’s want of power there — Froude and Hugh O’Neill — Froude’smisrepresentation — Camden’s account — Elizabeth’s great kindness to O’Neill according to Mr. Froude — Falsehood about Hugh O’Neill having been brought up a Pro- testant at the Court of Elizabeth — His first recorded visit to England was in 1567 — His probable age then — About twenty- seven years — Carew MSS. — Captain Lee’s brief declaration — O’Neill’s conduct when with the Lord Deputy — Captain Lee’s hopes of his conversion — His influence over the Ulster Catholics unimpaired — The young Earl of Desmond’s reception in Mun- ster — Miler Magrath^ (note) — Formidable opposition to Eliza- beth at this time — Price, a spy on young Desmond — Great pains taken to make his coming known — The people’s conduct towards him at Cork — His reception at Kilmallock — Immense crowds there — Their indignation at finding he was a Protestant— They hurry away faster than they came — Application of their action to the case of O’Neill — The young Earl of Desmond returned to England and soon died, . , . • ■ • •IT VI CONTENTS. CHAPTER III. rage. The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy tendered as one This system produced some two hundred martyrs — the vast majority of whom were priests — Also very many confessors — Many heroic laymen also suffered — Among the martyrs there were fourteen bishops — Examples of the punishments inflicted — Forty-two priests drowned— Bishop O’Haly and Father O’Rourke seized on landing — Brought before Drury, Lord Deputy — Declared boldly their calling and mission — They were racked, their bones being broken with hammers, and needles thrust under their nails — They were hanged upon a tree, where their bodies remained 14 days as targets for the bullet practice of the soldiers — Bishop’s warning to Drury — He dies in a few days at Waterford in great agony— Countess of Desmond — She was a Butler, being daughter of Lord Dunboyne — Lord Deputy Gray — Slaughter at Smer- wick, Hov., 1580 — Martyrdom of Father Moore, Oliver Plunket, and William Walsh — Their sufferings — Theirprofession of faith — Martyrdom of Father Daniel O’Nielan at Youghal— Martyrdom of Most Rev. Dr. O’Hurly, Archbishop of Cashel — His arrival in Ireland— Goes to Slane Castle— Chief- Justice Dillon interviews him — The Archbishop flies from Slane Castle — Fleming, Baron of Slane, brought before the Council in Dublin — being “ tepid in faith,” he revealed what he knew of the Archbishop, who was arrested in Carrick-on-Suir and brought back to Dublin, where he was subjected to the most fiendish torments — He is des- patched by the Lords- Justices lest his punishment should be mitigated — Relaxation of persecution — Lord Bacon — Mountjoy — The princely policy— Martyrdom of O’Rourke, Prince of Breffnie — Villainy of James I. — O’Rourke’s profession of faith — His desire to be hanged with a gad in the Irish fashion, . 24 CHAPTER IV. James I. — Expectations of clemency from him disappointed — Catho- lics too importunate — Penalties for not attending Protestant worship increased — Church-Papists — Protestant Bishop of Cork, &c., on Lord Barry’s conduct — Ever “ Massing” every where — Horsfall of Ossory — J ustice Saxey — Brouncker banishes priests illegally — Rewards offered for seizing them — The king’s procla,- mation banishing priests — Zeal of the priests according to Sir J. Davys — The Flight of theEarls did not make the Catholics despair — Priests return from abroad — Devotion of Irishwomen to the faith — Fines for absence from Protestant service — The Star Chamber (note) — Appeal against the King’s Proclamation — Chichester’s knavery — New clause added to proclamation — The Dublin Corporation summoned to attend service in Christ’s Church — Heavy fines for not attending — Try to save their pro- perty — Prevented by the Star Chamber — Petition from the Catholics — Brouncker’s intemperate zeal checked by the Council — The fines for not appearing at Protestant service actively enforceddn Connaught,' . * . • . . . .33 CONTENTS. Vll CHAPTER V. Page Plantation of Ulster— The dispossessed natives compelled to inhabit certain barren districts — Soldiers planted amongst them to over- awe them and observe their movements — Scandalous robbery of the natives — Thewoodkern — The escheated lands over 3,000,000 acres — Derry given to twelve London companies — Fraudulent surveys — Trinity College — Wentworth fines the London com- panies — The views of J ames and Chichester on Popery in Ireland — The Parliament of 1613— Irish peers’ address to the king — Heads of bills — Creation of forty new boroughs to swamp the con- stituencies — Immense grants to Chichester — Contention about the Speakership — “Letter of divers Lords of the Pale” — House packed by government officials — Deputation to England — Lord Deputy sends officials beforehand to the king — The Catholics set a subscription on foot to defray the expenses of their deputa- tion, which Chichester suppressed by proclamation — His mis- representations to the king — Substance of Chichester’s procla- mation — The king’s conduct towards the deputation — King sends commissioners to Ireland — A sham commission, the Lord Deputy, who was most inculpated, having been put on it with four others — A report was of course drawn up, which the king having “ well perused and considered,” denounced the Catholic Deputation in a proclamation — Chichester created a Baron with a grant of the whole of Innishowen, O’Doherty’s country — The king at length gives an answer to the Catholic Deputation ; its purport (note) — Chichester recalled — Sir Oliver St. John sent in his place — His government — A continuous persecution of the Catholics — Ruined by continual fines— St. John recalled and made a Viscount— Falkland sent over — Ussher’s sermon at his in- stallation — Proclamation ordering all priests to quit the country in 40 days — James’s plan to plant Leinster and Connaught as he had done Ulster — Artful warrant to Chichester — Leland’s view — Sham investigation — Real reason for seizing land — Forfeitures in Connaught — Barefaced robbery of the people, , . 41 CHAPTER VI. Irish Court of Wards established by James I. in 1617 — Unconstitu- tionally, too, for he called it into existence without the consent of Parliament — Its rules and provisions — Constructed to rob the Catholics both of their property and their faith — Persons to whom Wards were assigned (note) — Number of minors disposed of in eight years — Many of them the most important Catholic heirs in the Kingdom — Elizabeth had a similar but less perfect system — George 16th Earl of Kildare, first Protestant Geraldine in Leinster — Two previous members of the family assumed to be Protestants — The eleventh Earl — His appointments under Elizabeth — His will— His trial— Sometimes spoke with sus- picious contempt of Papists — Viscount Baltinglass’s letter to the Earl — The Catholic fugitive Geraldine— Educated by (Cardinal Pole — Master of Horse to Cosmo, Duke of Florence — Gomes to England, and marries the Lady Mabel Browne — His Career — viii CONTENTS. Page. His sons Henry and William — Gerald 14tli Earl — His mother an Englishwoman — Fond of putting himself forward as an Englishman to Cecil and the Queen — A perpetual suitor for gifts and preferments — Generally regarded as a Protestant — Curious facts which throw a doubt on this — Grants to him by James I. — Dr. Knox, Bishop of Eaphoe — Sent to tear Catho- licity up by the roots — Kildare's speech to the Viceroy — Kildare takes ill at Dublin Castle, believes himself poisoned, rides hurriedly home to Maynooth, sends for a priest, and is dead before morning — O'Daly’s account — Chichester’s letter to Salisbury— Wardship of Kildare’s son — The enchanted Earl — The fairy Earl — Character of the 16th Earl — Viscount Thurles — His age when made a Ward — King James’s shameless injustice about the Ormonde property (note) — Death of James — Amount of his confiscations — The Kanelaghs (note), . . .57 CHAPTEE VIL Charles, the third and only surviving son of James L, becomes King — The Irish Catholics unmolested in the beginning of his reign — War with Spain — Lord Deputy Falkland appealed to Irish landowners for funds for the war — They promised to raise what he called for — Two-thirds of the landowners who met the Vice- roy were Catholics, and the cry was raised they were going to buy toleration — The Protestant bishops met and drew up what they termed the “ J udgment of divers of the Archbishops, &c.” — Contents of the document — £120,000 were raised, for which Charles granted fifty- one “Graces,” as those concessions were called — The “ Graces” did not apply exclusively to the Catholics, the majority of them applied to Protestants as well as Catholics — Ussher’s religious liberty — Buying and selling Church Livings — Falkland ordered to summon a Parliament — Suspicious mis- take, Parliament not legally convened— Leland’s view— Pro- clamation against priests — Catholics pay nine-tenths of the subsidies — Persecuting outrage in Cook St., Dublin — Imprison- ment of eight Catholic aldermen— 15 Catholic churches and a Catholic college seized — The King approves of it all — The English Privy Council to the Irish Privy Council — Elizabeth’s law against saying Mass — Catholics aroused to a sense of their position — Wentworth, sent to Ireland — The fine of 12d. a Sunday on Catholics for being absent from Protestant service despised by Wentworth — A mere trifle to him — He had higher aims, and was determined to complete the confiscation of the soil of Ireland — Wentworth summons a Parliament — The Catholic element still predominant — His plan for ruling the Parliament — He put as many dependants of the Crown into Parliament as he could — Wentworth the subservient tool of the King — Meanness and falsehood of both — Wentworth deceives the Parliament — Turns his attention to the planting of Connaught— Ormonde gives his property up to the King— Others do the same — Went- worth goes to Connaught with an imposing retinue — The whole of that Province to be confiscated and planted — Leland — The Connaught proprietors not so facile as Ormonde — Wentworth’s speech at Boyle — Lawyers were heard on both sides — King’s CONTENTS. IX Page. title found at Boyle — Sligo and Mayo followed the example — The Galway Grand Jury was not so pliant — They were nearly all Catholics — Besides they hoped for support from the House of Clanrickard — They refused to find for the King — Went- worth became furious, and determined to ruin them, which he was not slow to do — Kot only the jurors but the whole county was punished — J udges openly bribed, . . . .74 CHAPTER VIII. A Retrospect of one hundred years, . , . » ,91 CHAPTER IX. The causes which led to the War of 1641 — Misstatements of Pro- testant historians — Temple — Clarendon — Carte — Warner — Pro- clamation against priests — Chichester’s villainy — Approved of by James — Toleration ! — The Protestant Bishop of Raphoe — Articles sent to Chichester — James Hamilton — Bishop Knox again (note) — Report of Commissioners on religion — Sir Oliver St. John succeeds Chichester as Lord Deputy — Citation and punishment of Lord Inchiquin by Lords- Justices — Anderson the priest hunter — Proclamation for bishops, priests, &c., to depart from Ireland within forty days — Another report con- cerning the state of the Church in Ireland — The English invasion — WarnePs opinion — Roman colonization — English ditto in Ireland — Irish motives for resistance — “Faith and Fatherland '' — Sir Phelim O’Keill — Remonstrance of the Catho- lics at Trim — Intolerance of the Puritans — Dr. Anderson’s opinion — Proclamation against Recusants — The Covenanters (note) — Catholics influenced by the success of the Puritans — Archbishop Laud — Fearful blasphemy (note) — Leslie takes the field against the King — Enthusiastic conscription throughout Scotland — The Scots cross the border and plunder the two northern counties of England — Charles was obliged to treat with the Scotch rebels at Ripon — The Irish miscalculate their resources — The Rising of 1641 — Restrictions on education — Irish students abroad, . , . , , ,96 CHAPTER X. Roger O’Moore — Young O’Neill — Sir Richard Plunket — Lord Maguire — Hugh Oge M‘Mahon — Philip O’Reilly — Torlogh O’Neill — First meeting at Roger O’Moore’s lodgings — Hopes and plans — Arrival of Neill O’Neill — Cardinal Richelieu — Death of Don John O’Neill — 23rd Oct., fixed on for the Rising of the Catholics — Resolution to surprise Dublin Castle — Defections — Wonderful secrecy — Owen O’Connolly — The British Officer on O’Connolly— Fosterage (note) — Lord Maguire and O’Con- nolly in Dublin — O’Connolly goes to the Lord Justice Parsons and turns informer — Great reward to O’Connolly — His end, . 108 CHAPTER XI. Earlier events of the War — Island Magee — Shooting of Sir Toby Caulfield — Sir Phelim O’Neill’s reverses — Landing of Owen X CONTEIsTS. Page. Eoe O’Neill — Conduct of the Lords- Justices — The accession of the Palesmen to the Rising — The Rising in Munster and Connaught — Parsons and Borlase — The English Pale — Griev- ances laid before the King — Fraudulent adjournment of Parlia- ment — Palesmen wait on the Lords- Justices — Their treatment by them — Parliament meets in November — Castlehaven at Maddinstown— Sir Charles Coote — Julianstown — Interview between Palesmen and Native Irish — Temple’s falsehood about Julianstown — Ormonde’s expedition to Naas — Father Higgins -^Ormonde’s expedition northwards — Offered submission by some Palesmen, but did not accept it — JMisrepresentation of this in England — Imprisonment of Lord Dunsany — Persons put to the rack — Rising of Munster — St. Leger — His cruelties — Request of the Munster gentlemen — St. Leger calls them “rebels” — Taking of Cashel — Good treatment of English there by the victorious Irish— Lord Mountgarret — Lords- Justices despise or pretend to despise the defection of the Pale — Connaught — Clanrickard’s terms with Galway not ratified — Willoughby — No submissions to be received, . . .115 CHAPTER XII. Synod of Kells — Dease of Meath — Congregation at Kilkenny — General Assembly — Oath of Association — Supreme Council — Seal of the Confederation — Generals appointed for the four Provinces — The King’s difficulties with the Parliamentarians — Sets up his standard at Nottingham — Preston’s successes — Owen Roe O’Neill — His correspondence with Leslie — Operations in Munster — Note on Leslie — Note on Inchiquin — Inchiquin’s soldiers sicken of fresh meat — Lieut.-Gen. Bourke — Fort of Galway — Bourke, Bishop of Clonfert — Confederation agents abroad — Grievances of the army — King’s cause in England — Battle of Edge Hill — Goodwin and Reynolds — Beginning of Cessation — Commissioners from Confederation — Sharp reply from Supreme Council— Phrase “ Odious Rebellion ” — Supreme Council modify their .first letter — Lords- Justices against Ces- sation — Ormonde sick — Wins the army — Goes to the Council Chamber — His progress to New Ross — His parley with the • Sovereign of the town — Battle of New Ross — Lord Lisle (note) — Catholic Grievances — Cessation left to Ormonde — Activity of the Confederates at home and abroad — Straits of Inchiquin — Sir Philip Percival — Clanrickard — Herrings for the army — Clan- rickard’s proceedings — Motives for Cessation — State of the Catholic Army — Arrival of Scarampi — Belling’s reasons for Cessation — Scarampi’s reply — Cessation agreed to — Views of the Privy Council — Articles of Cessation signed at Sigginstown, . 161 CHAPTER XIII. Succours sent to Charles — Defeated at Nantwick — Supreme Council opposed to private persons raising an army for the King — Ormonde made Lord Lieutenant — The four things he was to attend to — Advantages of the Cessation to Charles — His diffi- CONTENTS. Page, culties — The Puritans — Monroe and the Covenant— Covenant taken in spite of the King’s Proclamation against it — Puritan views about it — Violations of the Cessation — Owen O’Neill observes it — English Parliament opposed to it — Dr. Leland’s opinion — Owen O’Connolly’s mission — Difficulties of English Colonels in Ulster — Ulster Protestants and the Covenant — Monroe and New Scots — Their slaughter of Irish peasants — Break the Cessation — Scotch army — Owen O’Neill — Monroe disregards the Cessation— O’Neill in Waterford — Castlehaven goes to Ulster— His ill success there — Fennell does not aid O’Neill— Earl of Antrim — Supreme command offered to and declined by Ormonde — Catholic agents sent to Oxford — The King writes to Ireland for Commissioners — Archbishop Ussher — Protestant (assumed) Deputation — Chief demands of the Catholics — Young Coote — Demands of the particular Protestants — The King in a dilemma — His answer to the Catholics — Matter referred to Ormonde — Most Kev. Dr. Fleming — Ormonde’s Counter Claims — The Irish answer — Unlegalized toleration for Catholics — Ormonde would not declare the Covenanters rebels — He offers to resign — His powers enlarged — Wardships restricted — Personal favours to Ormonde — Custo- diums — Ormonde persists in calling the Catholics rebels — Captain S wanly — Lady Alice Moore— Young Lord Moore — George Stroude — The King’s absurd concessions to Moore — Monroe and Ormonde — Clanrickard— Irish would not go to Scotland — The Peace — It falls through — Ormonde’s demands, . 200 CHAPTER XIV. Glamorgan’s mission — Failure of Charles’splans— Ormonde — Reasons of Glamorgan’s mission— Ormonde’s religious declaration— Gla- morgan’s powers — Charles’s double dealing — Glamorgan — Treaty with the Catholics — Declaration of General Assembly — Rinuccini, the Pope’s Nuncio, arrives — Delivers his views — Discovery of the secret treaty — How 1— Sent to the English Parliament — Charge of Treason preferred against Glamorgan by Lord Digby — He is imprisoned — Action of the Supreme Council — Fatal delays — Digby’s real motive (note) — His character — The Parliament com- plains that Irish rebels had been brought over to England and Scotland— The King disavows Glamorgan — Sir Thomas Fairfax — Padstow — Discovery of letters at — Ormonde — Digby — Lord Muskerry — N. Plunket — Glamorgan’s titles — King’s letter to Ormonde — Ditto — Dr. Lingard’s view — Glamorgan — Treaty agreed to at Rome — The Queen agrees to the Roman treaty, and why ? — The General Assembly accepts Ormonde’s peace, although opposed by the Nuncio — Its provisions and chief objects, ........ 224 CHAPTER XV. The Peace of forty-six — Published on 29th July — Ormonde’s policy— Ormonde’s power in the Supreme Council — Meeting of prelates at Waterford — Oath of Association discussed there — Commis- sioners’ apparent neglect of instructions — Ormonde’s great error — Glamorgan’s mission — The peace condemned — The reasons — Xll CONTENTS. Battle of Benburb — Numbers engaged — Carte’s misstatements about Monroe’s advance — Authorities contradicting it — Mon- roe’s generalship at Benburb — The Nuncio calls O’Neill south — Ormonde in danger — Carte’s astounding assertion — Ormonde opens negotiations with the Parliament — Dissolution of the old Supreme Council — Jealousies of generals — Battle of Dungan’s hill — The attempt on Dublin — The Nuncio proceeds to Kilkea Castle — Father R. Nugent — The Countess of Kildare — The Con- federate armies at Lucan and Leixlip — Clanrickard’s peace — The mysterious messenger — O’Neill retires into Meath — Preston’s prevarications — Ormonde moves into Westmeath and Longford to subsist his army — His agreement with the Parliament Commis- sioners — Addendum to concessions offered to the Catholics — Sacrifices of families — Ormonde’s treatment by the Parliamen- tary Commissioners — He is compelled to leave Dublin Castle before the appointed time — He commissioned others to give up the regalia — Bellings’ unsustained assertion about the King’s order to Ormonde — Ormonde’s habit of avoiding the King’s orders — He tells him to make peace with the Irish at any cost — Supposed letter of Charles from Newcastle — EpLcopalianism abolished in Dublin by the Parliament’s Commissioners — Ormonde’s treatment after arriving in England — Is obliged to go to France — Nuncio’s report on the state of the kingdom — — Inchiquin’s butcheries at Cashel — Taaffe’s inaction — Cor- respondence of Ormonde with Inchiquin — Taaffe at Knock- naness (note) — Ormonde goes to France — His diplomatic skill — His hatred of the Catholics, and its cause — His hatred of the Nuncio and O’Neill — His mode of dealing with the Catholics — Thoughts of a foreign protectorate — Embassies sent — The Nuncio’s view — Ormonde’s view — Swamping of the General Assembly — The Embassy to France, how managed — Ormonde’s advice to the Queen — Preston and Taaffe’s instruc- tions — The Nuncio and O’Neill — The Cessation with Inchiquin — His treatment of the Assembly — Nuncio’s reasons against the truce with Inchiquin — Reply of the Supreme Council — Truce made with Inchiquin — The Nuncio privately leaves Kilkenny — He publishes an Interdict and Excommunication — Appeal against them — Taaffe and Clanrickard’s expedition — The Nuncio goes to Galway — Preston marches against O’Neill — The assem- bling of a Synod prevented — O’Neill proclaimed a rebel — Charges against the Nuncio — He sails from Galway — His char- acter — The spirit of the historians of 1641 — Borlase — Abbizzi’s letter — Removal of the censures delayed, . , . 240 CHAPTER XVI. Ormonde returns to Ireland — Proceeds to Carrick' Castle — He brings but a small sum of money to pay the troops — Pretended he brought drafts on various merchants — The army becomes discontented — Inchiquin is alarmed and sends for Ormonde — Report of Mr. Fanshaw coming with supplies — Ormonde goes to Kilkenny — Enters it in regal splendour — Is enthroned in the Castle — ^Declares the Confederation dissolved — Remonstrance of the English army — Its effect in Ireland — Execution of the King. CONTENTS. Xlll — The Prince proclaimed King as Charles 11. by Ormonde in such towns as owned his sway — Overtures to O’Neill — O’Neill’s difficulties — Deserted by more than half his army and their com- manders — Reply to Ormonde — His demands — Ormonde willing to grant them, but the Commissioners were against them, and no terms were come to — O’Neill concludes a truce with Monk — Inchiquin before Dundalk — Monk’s soldiers desert him — Colonel Trevor gets bargains — Monk summoned to London, where he was censured — Junction of the Confederate army with Ormonde’s — Reinforcements sent to J ones — Cromwell coming — Lord Dillon of Costello at Finglas — Rathmines taken — Baggotrath — Purcell sets out to fortify it — Ormonde went early next morning to see it — Little or nothing had been done — He went back to hed-—E.Q was soon aroused — Mounts his horse to ride towards Baggot- rath, but meets Purcell’s men flying towards him — Ormonde’s men fled also — It was a route and a slaughter — The Irish were of opinion that Ormonde had a secret understanding with the Parlia- ment, his overthrow was so complete — Jones’s feelings — The killed, wounded, and prisoners — Numbers engaged — Purcell and his party — The Irish blamed — No cause for it — Purcell’s negligence — Carte and Cox — The English officer — State of Ormonde’s camp — O’Neill’s opinion of Ormonde’s army — ■ Ormonde at Ballysonan — Ormonde’s lies — Coote at Derry — O’Neill and Coote — O’Neill takes ill before Derry — His death — Supposed to be poisoned — He comes to terms with Ormonde, but too late — His character as a general, a Catholic and a patriot, 289 CHAPTER XVII. Cromwell — Different opinions about his character — His idea that he had a mission — His early life — His family — His education — The time of his call — He pays ship money — Drainage of the Fens — Description of him by Sir Philip Warwick — Carlyle’s commentary on it — He joins the Independents in the House of Commons — Seeks popularity with the army — Pride’s Purge — His assumption that he was specially guided by God — His occasional mildness and apparent timidity — He opens the King’s coffin — Turns tyrant — Dismisses the Long Parliament — His E ious sorrow for having been obliged to do so — Description of im as he then was — Preaching and praying — Burnet’s opinion of him — Reticent about his own views, but always trying to sound others — Had the gift of tears — Moves the House of Commons by them — Is compared to Joel, Samson and David — Brings the army to London — Forty-seven members imprisoned and ninety-six excluded from the House — This was called Pride’s Purge — The principles of Cromwell and his party — His ambition — ■ Opposition to it — Fairfax — London opposed to Cromwell’s ambition — Colonel Jephson’s motion — The instrument of govern- ment — Sir Christopher Pack’s motion — Lambert and Des- borough against kingship — Cromwell tries to win them to his views in vain — The army opposed to them — Being foiled, he re- fuses the title of King — His spy system — Examples of it — Made England respected abroad — The Dutch ambassador’s opinion of him — Striking announcement of his daughter’s marriage in Court XIV CONTENTS. Page. Gazette (footnote) — His devotion to his family — His design to fight Home — Worcester fight the “ crowning victory’' — Deserts his old friends — His Highness the Lord Protector — Treatment of Parliament — Cromwell at Marston Moor — Sir H. Slingsby and Dr. Hewett — Cromwell’s last moments and death — His bio- graphers, ........ 306 CHAPTER XYIIL Ormonde’s folly — Army for Ireland — Cromwell made commander-in- chief — His tortuous policy — Hesitates about coming to Ireland — His appearance in the House of Commons — Active prepar- ations — Takes his departure in great State, after preaching a sermon and hearing others from his friends — Letter to his daughter from Bristol — Arrives in Dublin — His order against pil- lage and cruelty — His reception in Dublin — His summons to Drogheda — Bravery of the garrison — Quarter and no quarter — Inchiquin’s opinion — Ormonde’s — Lynch in Gamhrensis Eversus — Duration of the slaughter — The slaughter in the Millmount — Two orders of no-quarter (note) — Dr. Lingard’s opinion — Con- fusion in Cromwell’s despatches — Setting up the Mass — What the people really did — Thomas Wood on the Massacre — Crom- well gives all the glory of the sack of Drogheda to God — Opinions of Protestant historians — Mr. Carlyle’s opinion — Dun- dalk, Trim, Carlingford, Newry, Lisburn, and Belfast surren- der — Sir C. Coote takes Coleraine, and puts the garrison to the sword — Cromwell marches on Wexford — Takes it — Slaughter there — Inchiquin known to the old Irish Morrogli-iin-tothaine — Col. Michael Jones — Wexford people hesitate — Stafford’s trea- son — Terms offered by Cromwell to Wexford — Sacking of Wexford — Great slaughter — Oliver’s homily about it — Number killed — Slaughter at the Market Cross — Desecration of the cross — (See note also) — Ireton fails at Duncannon fort — Sir Lucius Taaffe — Ross — Cromwell’s idea of freedom of conscience — The southern garrisons and Inchiquin — Cromwell intrigues with them — Colonel Townshend his instrument — Lord Broghill — Cromwell at Waterford — Lieut.-General O’Eerrall received into Waterford — His answer to Cromwell — Ormonde is refused a passage through Waterford — Cromwell at Youghal — At Dungarvan — Michael Jones dies there — Supposed to be poisoned — Ormonde wishes to leave Ireland — Persecution in Cork — Colonel Phaire (note) — Cromwell opens his spring campaign — Triumphant pro- gress — Colonel Hewson goes south — Cromwell before Kilkenny — Bribes Tickle — Kilkennysurrendered — Tories (note) — Conduct of Puritan soldiers in Kilkenny — Lord Broghill — Bishop of Ross — His courage — His martyrdom (see note) — Siege of Clon- mel — Fennell’s treachery — The silver bullet (See note in Ap- pendix) — Articles agreed to — O’Neill’s escape — Cromwell leaves Ireland — Bringing our noble to ninepence (note) — Martyrdom of priests — Honours given to Cromwell on his arrival in England — Charles II. takes the Covenant — Fairfax declines the chief command of the army against Scotland — Cromwell accepts it — Defeats the Scots at Dunbar and Worcester — Ulster army — • Heber M‘Mahon, Bishop of Clogher, chosen general-in-chief — COJn TENTS. XV Gives Coote and Venables battle aejainst advice, and under great disadvantages — Lieut. -General O’Farrell — Henry Roe O’Neill, Owen’s son — Defeat of the Northern army at Scarriff-hollis — Charles II. wishes to come to Ireland — He is coldly received every- where — Comes to Jersey — Invited to Scotland — “Honour and conscience” — Conference at Breda — Montrose — Charles ignores him after his defeat — His cruel execution — The fact of Charles having taken the Covenant reaches Ireland — Assembly at Jamestown — Ormonde appoints two meetings at Loughrea, . 325 CHAPTER XIX. Ormonde at Limerick — The citizens refuse a garrison from him — Ludlow and Cromwell — Ludlow made general of the horse in Ireland — Ireton before Limerick — Operations at Killaloe — Castlehaven’s movements there — Treason of Kelly and Fennell — Castleconnell (note) — The Parliamentarians cross the Shannon at O’Brien’s Bridge — Ludlow’s account of it — Castlehaven’s retirement from Killaloe — “ A plain fleeing” — Pass of Ferboe — Ingoldsby forces it — Day of thanksgiving — Offer to treat of sur- render — No agreement — Storming party cut off — Expeditions into the country — Bribery — Supplies from England — Sir Teague AI‘Mahon’s Castle taken — Ormonde leaves Ireland — Two Lords- Lieutenant and two Lords Deputy — Muskerry and Broghill — Colonel Fitzpatrick — Coote in Connaught — Curlew mountains — Ballaghy pass — Coote and Clanrickard — Ludlow at Portumna — Athlone taken — Sir J. Dillon and Sir Robert Talbot — Ireton and Ludlow go into Clare — Sir Hardress Waller — People attempt to leave Limerick, but are driven back — Ireton tries to win over O’Neill — O’Neill’s reply — Ireton treats with Fennell — He foments divisions in the city — Most Rev. Dr. O’Brien, Bishop of Emly (note) — Various parties within Limerick — Feeling against Ormonde — O’Neill admitted into the city — Action of the bishops and priests — Limerick betrayed by a conspiracy — The Mayor’s conduct — Resolution to treat for peace in 14 days — Council in Court-house, 23rd October — Resolutions passed at it — Excommunication for those resolutions threatened and pub- blished — The same night St. John’s gate seized by Fennell and others — Fennell’s answer to O’Neill — St. John’s gate delivered to the enemy, but untruly denied by Fennell — Lord Castle- connell supports Fennell — Proceedings of the besiegers — Treaty made — Twenty-two persons excepted from the benefit of it — Executions — Purcell’s cowardice — Geoffrey Barron — Father Woulfe and Bishop of Emly died courageously — The warlike stores found in the city very large — Ireton enters the city — About 2,500 of the defenders march out — O’Neill’s defence of himself — His life saved — Missionaries of St. Vincent de Paul in Limerick — Sent by Pope Innocent X. —St. Vincent’s address to them — They arrive in Ireland — Won- derful success of their missions — Congratulations from the Nuncio to them — Letter of Bishop of Limerick — St. Vincent’s letter — Priests escape as soldiers — The cleric Lye martyred — The Parent House — St. Lazare paid the expense of those mis- sionaries — Many strangers (non-citizens) in Limerick during the XVI CONTENTS. Page. siege — Population of Ireland at this time — Names of the Vin- centian missionaries (note) — Meeting of Bishops at Clonmacnoise — Result of meeting — Their meeting with Ormonde at Limerick — His demands — Articles drawn up by the prelates — Ormonde’s reply — Letter of Charles 11. from Jersey to Ormonde — Dutiful answer — Cromwell’s ambition — His offer to Ormonde — Axtel’s proposal to the Catholics — Treason of Clanrickard and Castle- haven — Lord Taaffe sent to Brussels — Opinion of the Queen and the Duke of York — Lorraine sends an envoy to Ireland — Lor- raine’s declaration regarding religion — The curse of Cromwell — The Kirk — Charles II. — Clanrickard — Lorraine’s demands — . Charles refuses to accede to them — Surrender of Galway, . 374 CHAPTER XX. Cromwellian Settlement — Rebellion subdued — Adventurers — Com- mittee of Members of Parliament and Adventurers — Terms on which Adventurers subscribed — Sir John Bulstrode Whitelock — Amount of subscriptions — The money diverted from the pur- pose for which it was subscribed — Battle of Edge Hill — Planta- tion delayed — Tories — Difficulties of allotting the lands to the Adventurers — Starving out the Irish — Number of Parliament army in Ireland — Departure of the Swordsmen for Spain — Foreign nations glad to receive them — Opinion of the Prince of Orange and of Henri Quatre of Irish valour (note) — Seizure of women and orphans for the Barbadoes — Also prisoners of war — ■ Hewson’s proclamation — The Irish “ protected” — Penalty for carrying arms, Death — Treatment of Presbyterians — Division into precincts — Commissioners for such precincts — To be Irish and Catholic was to be transportable — The dreadful letters I.P. [Irish Papist] were enough to condemn to Connaught, . 402 CHAPTER XXL Great storm at the death of Cromwell — His son Richard pro- claimed Protector — Not equal to the post — He is ordered from Whitehall, and the Army rules — Henry Cromwell in Ireland — He was expected to resist his brother’s expulsion — but did not — He was allowed to retire into private life and did — Hopes and dangers of the cavaliers — Booth’s risingin Cheshire — General Monk — His career — His character — He restores Charles II. — Charles’s conduct heaps favours on his enemies, and neglects those who suffered for him — Conduct of the Cromwellians — Their loyal addresses — They offer money to the King — Put forward the old lie that the Irish Papists intended a general rising — The King proclaimed in Dublin — Cromwellians give him £20,000, £4,000 to the Duke of York, and £2,000 to the Duke of Gloucester — They ask a general indemnity for the Protestants, an Act of attainder for others — And a confirmation of all judicial proceedings, &c., from October 23, 1641, to Easter 1660 — Catholic owners said to have re-entered on possession by force — See Mr. Prendergast’s letter (note) — Agents of Adventurers active in England — Act of indemnity not to extend to Catholics — English Act of Indemnity — Scotch ditto — Three accredited bodies sent to England by Cromwellians and Adventurers — CONTENTS. XVll Page. Their demands — Leiand’s opinion — Ormonde’s “ haughty com- miseration ” — King’s declaration for the settlement of Ireland — Outburst of Loyalty from Cromwellians — Preamble of bill “ a miracle of ingenuity” — The whole government of Cromwell ignored and passed over — But the laws he made were to be •retained — Bruium Fulmen — Chief provisions of Act of Settle- ment — Reason for provisions against Papists — The Nominees (note) — Commissioners sat in Dublin — Opinion of judges — Parliament of 1661 — Mervyn chosen speaker — Constitution of this Parliament — Oath of Supremacy to be taken — A new rebellion invented — Report on it — It fell through — Conditions for “ Innocency,” — Note on those conditions — A principle of Napoleon L — What about innocent “Cromwellians’”? — Loyalty of Catholics — “ Floreat Rex” motto of the Confederation — Motive of the Cromwellians in calling the Irish Catholics rebels — Act of Settlement — Improvident grants to Ormonde and others — Alarm of the Soldiers and Adventurers at the number of decrees of Innocency passed — Defiance of decency and justice by the occupiers of the lands — Rebellion concocted — con- sequent persecution — priests apprehended — Catholics driven from the towns — Houses of Catholic gentry searched for arms, &c. — Ormonde’s treachery to the Catholics — Court of claims — Catholic claims proved, in spite of suborned, perjured witnesses — Petty’s boast — Court of claims closed before Catho- lics were heard — Every “innocent” transplanted to Connaught was a Catholic — Ormonde — Bill of Explanation — Ouly about one-fifth of the Catholic claims heard — The forty-nine officers — Their case — officers who served the King abroad — Protestant Ascendancy — Trial and martyrdom of Oliver Plunkett, Primate of Ireland, 424 CHAPTER XXII. Charles and James naturally leaned to the Catholic Faith — their mother being a Catholic — Charles for political reasons sanctioned persecuting laws against the Catholics — James’s open avowal of Catholicity on coming to the throne — Strong Protestant feeling excited against him in consequence — Speech to the Council — His position as King of England — Liberates Catholics and dissenters in jail for their religion — Hatred of Popen^ — Terror of it — Sudden conversion of large numbers from the Episcopalian church — Pamphlets against the Catholics — The dissenters joined the Episcopalians against the King after a time — They pretend James was not a real friend to civil and religious liberty — They were always asserting his acts were not in accordance with his real sentiments, because it served their purpose to do so — If James played hypocrite, and pretended to be a Protestant, his crown would be secure — C. J. Fox’s opinion — Argument from the massacre of fanatics in Scotland — Why Mr. Fox’s opinion is specially valuable — King’s “ State of the Protestants,” &c. — Heads of indictment against James by Dr. King, based upon assumptions — (1) That the Protestants were the people of Ireland ; (2) That it is only the persecution in- flicted on Episcopalian Protestants that is a crime — Dr. King’s XVlll contents. Page eulogium on liberty — His opposition to a toleration bill in favour of dissenters — No toleration for Catholics — Burnet’s high eulogium on King’s “State of the Protestants” — Dr. Mant’s remarkable silence about it — Talbot, Duke of Tyrconnell — His outspoken manner — James gives him rapid promotion — King’s attack upon him — King a great eulogist of James at first — Note on Rev. Charles Leslie — Swift’s eulogium upon him — Dr, King’s various promotions-His disappointment at not having been made Primate — Rapid changes in loyalty of Protestants — cause of it — Dr. King’s statement about the seizure of Protestant churches by the Catholics — His assumption of the non-existence of Catholics in Ireland — Their numbers as compared with the Protestants at the time — James’s kindness to the Protestants — Opposite opinions about yielding allegiance to a Catholic King — Dr. King’s opinion about the sacrifices that ought to be made to preserve liberty — James quits Ireland for France — His habits at St. Germains — His death — Wade’s commentary on his devo- tions — Leslie’s estimate of James’s career and character — Repeal of the Act of Settlement and Explanation — James opposed to their having been passed — Urged Lord Granard and others to oppose them, 451 CHAPTER XXIII. Protestantism of the Stuarts — James the Second’s sacrifices for his religious convictions — Liberality to the Dissenters — William HI. — Views of Tories — Of Whigs — William’s education and training — Action of the Duke of York’s enemies (note) — Burnet — Diffi- culties as to whether William and his wife should reign — His decision — James lands at Kinsale — Col. Hamilton — Lord Granard — William’s declaration about the Catholics — Sarsfield’s refusal to carry a letter from William to Tyrconnell — William neglects Irish affairs — A great error — Sees his error and raises an army sufficient to reduce Ireland — It was a motley army consisting of twenty-three newly-raised English regiments, two Dutch battalions, four regiments of French refugees, Innis- killiners, Scotch regiments, and 6,000 hired Danes — Schomberg made Commander-in-Chief {vide note) — Landed at Carrickfer- gus 12th August — Violation of Articles made there — Story’s account — The true account — Schomberg marches to Dundalk — Mortality in his army there — William perplexed between the two English parties — His unpopularity — He is ridiculed and nicknamed Hooknose, &c. — Declares he will return to Holland — Is dissuaded from it and comes to Ireland — Battle of the Boyne — The Queen’s letter about the state of the Protestant Church in Ireland — William proceeds towards Dublin and halts at Finglass — Publishes a declaration — Moves to Crumlin — On to Castledermot, Carlow, Kilkenny, Carrick, Waterford, Dun- cannon — All surrendered to him without a blow — He arrived before Limerick on the 8th of August, which, on being sum- moned, refused to surrender — Ginkle arrives — Sarsfield’s suc- cess at Ballyneety — William goes on with the siege — Breach made 12 yards wide — Limerick stormed with 10,000 picked soldiers — Determined fighting — The Irish retire some distance CONTENTS. XIX Page. into the city, followed by the Williamites, but turning sud- denly on the latter, they hurl missiles of every kind with the most deadly effect upon them — The Brandenburghers blown up — William hurries from Limerick — Burning of the hospital there (note) — Marlborough and the Duke of Wirtumburg invest Cork — It is taken, and also Kinsale, . . *471 CHAPTER XXIV. The English come before Athlone — The English town taken — Fierce contention for the bridge — Irish break the bridge all but one arch at their own side — The English plank the broken arches — The Irish destroy the planks — Close gallery made by ^ the English — Burned by the Irish — The English take to the river, sixty of them in armour — The town yields for want of succour from St. Ruth— The Irish army falls back on Aughrim — Death of St. Ruth — English give no quarter — Sarsfield ignorant of St. Ruth’s plans — De Ginkle’s generalship faulty — Galway invested — Balldearg O’Donnell — Galway taken — English army arrive before Limerick — The siege having lasted a month the garrison beat a parley and send out terms which are rejected — Ultimately the famous treaty of Limerick was agreed to — Its provisions — Intended to confer religious liberty — Mr. Froude’s adroitness — Omitted Article restored by William — His reasons for restoring it — The cause of the omission — William bound himself to sum- mon a Parliament — He did so, but the articles of Limerick were not brought before it — Hope of extirpating the Irish and old English (note) — Sheriffs and others act as if no Articles had been made — Harris’s opinion — Another Parliament held in 1695 — Capel the Lord Deputy made no reference to^ the Articles of Limerick, but urged the making of such laws as would prevent “their enemies” [the Catholics] from ever being able to give them any further trouble — Bills of pains and penalties re-transmitted from England — Education — Catholics excluded from Parliament — £5, highest price for a Papist’s horse — Catho- lics deprived of fire arms — Catholic apprentices not to be taken by gunsmiths and cutlers — Laws against rapparees — Baronies made responsible for them — Not to be harboured — £20 reward for a proclaimed Tory dead or alive — Articles of Limerick brought forward — Flagrant violations of them and alterations in them — Magistrates fined for not putting the penal laws in force against the Catholics — Laws against Catholic bishops and priests — Apologists of William — No real excuse for his conduct — Establishment of the woollen manufactures in Ireland, . 486 CHAPTER XXV. Reign of Anne — Anne always in the hands of favourites — The Duchess of Marlborough — Anne neglected by William III. — The true relation between him and the English people — Anne ungrateful to Ireland — James, the second Duke of Ormonde, appointed Lord Lieutenant — His antecedents and character (note)— No pretence for the new penal laws against the Irish Catholics — Edmund Burke’s opinion — Ormonde opens the XX CONTENTS. Session of Parliament — Bill against “the further growth of Popery” — Burnet’s opinion — Clause against dissenters — Its object — Petitioned against by the dissenters — Their opposition withdrawn lest the bill would be rejected — Object of the penal laws against Catholics — Chief clauses of the bill to prevent the further, growth of Popery — Clause about excluding Papists from corporate towns, especially Limerick and Galway — Lawyers against the Act as a violation of the treaty of Limerick — Astounding answer of the Irish Parliament — Act of Explanation, making the original Act more severe — Discoverers — their occupation — their rewards — Perversion of law — Mr. Howard’s pity for the Catholics — Penal legislation continued in the reign of George — Militia law-fines — Disfranchisement of the Catholics in 1727— Proselytizing Education — Vast number of Schools for this purpose — Erasmus Smith’s foundations — The Blue Coat hospital — The Foundling hospital — The Charter schools — Schools of Irish Church Missions — Mr. Dallas —His editors — Bibles and Testaments printed — Mission in Island of Achill — Mr. Nangle — Present state of the Mission there — Money spent in Achill — Irish Church Missions — Nassau W. Senior — Dr. Whately — Scriptural Education — Its power over an Oxford man less than over a peasant ! — Dingle — Mrs. Thompson — Collections in England — Cottages built for perverts — Mr. Monck Mason — Collections — Lord Ventry — Miss Mahon — Memoran- dums made in Ireland — Dr. Forbes — Correspondence between Chancellor Webster and Mr. Eade — Sham controversial dis- cussions — The Birds’ Nest, Kingstown — Training there — Mis- sionary effort in Belfast ! — Mr. Dallas — His succes.s, . . 505 Notes ........ 555 APPENDIX. I. — Act for Kegistering the Popish clergy, with examples of the manner in which it was done, . . . . .561 II. — Kev. Mr. Webster’s final letter on the Irish Church Missions, 581 III. — The passage from Archbishop Whately’s Charge referred to in page 531, . . . . . • . • 58a THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH IN IRELAND. CHAPTER I. The English were more than three hundred and fifty years in Ireland when King Henry the Eighth threw off the Pope’s supre- macy. During that long period the battle which was waged on Irish soil lay between the natives and their invaders ; as both were Catholics, the dispute was not of a religious kind, it was simply territorial; the natives struggling to hold their country, the invaders endeavouring to seize it. The rejection of Papal supremacy by Henry, therefore, produced a great change in Irish affairs ; thenceforth, with but brief intervals, the English interest and the Protestant interest were regarded as identical. Hot that the people of English andHorman blood in Ireland accepted the king’s supremacy any more than the Irish did. Far from it, on its first introduction they rejected it with indignation, and in later times chiefs of that blood were amongst the accepted and the most trusted defenders of the ancient faith. But all who sought wealth or distinction through the favour of the Crown accepted, either really or apparently, the spiritual headship of the reign- ing monarch. The first to accept it, even before George Browne was made Archbishop of Dublin, were two members of a leading Herman family, namely, the Earl of Ossory, and Lord Butler, father and son; for which the latter was created Viscount Thurles, and made Admiral of Ireland, whilst both were jointly appointed governors of the counties of Kilkenny, Waterford, and Tipperary, together with the territories of Ossory and Ormond.* The prelacy and Parliament of England came over to the king’s religious views with a readiness quite surprising, and which must * ‘'On the 11th of May [1535] the Lord Butler was created Viscount Thurles and Admiral of Ireland, and on the 21st his father (the Earl of Ossory) and he were made governors of the counties of Kilkenny, Waterford, and Tipperary, and the territories of Ossory and Ormond ; and they promised to do their utmost endeavour to recover the castle of Dungarvan, and to resist the usurpa- tion of the Bishop of Rome, which is the first engagement I have met with of that kind.” Sir Richard Cox’s Hibernia Anglicana. Reign of Henry the 8th, p. 240. The italics and capitals are Cox’s. He quotes for his authority, Lib. H. Lambeth. A 2 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH have been very gratifying to a prince of his temper. Elated with his success, he determined to have those views adopted in Ireland, or at least in that portion of it which acknowledged his authority. To effect this fitting instruments were necessary, and amongst the first of them that became available was George Browne, Provincial of the Augustinians, and resident in a house of the Order in London, who brought himself prominently into notice, by preaching up the doctrines which he knew were pleas- ing to the king’s favourite and Yicar-General, Cromwell.* Allen, Archbishop of Dublin, having been seized and cruelly murdered in attempting to escape from that city to England, Henry took the opportunity of appointing Browne to the vacant See, and of making him, it would seem, head of a commission entrusted with the task of spreading the new tenets in Ireland.f This appointment may be regarded as the beginning of that religious struggle in Ireland which, carried on in a variety of ways, and by widely different means, has now endured for three centuries and a half, and is not yet ended ; nor does he live who can forecast its termination. It is proudly boasted that the flag of England has braved, for a thousand years, the battle and the breeze ; it may, with at least equal truth, be said, that since the day Henry the Eighth of England appointed the English apostate friar to the See of Dublin, the flag of Irish Catholic Faith has braved every assault. No courage of armed assailants, no power of the most potent monarchs, no wicked violation of solemn treaties, no amount of crafty diplomacy, no per- secution however ruthless and bloody, no hoards of untold wealth, thrown open before the eyes of a starving people, have been able to strike down this stainless flag, so bravely has it with- stood the battle. As to the breeze, no matter whence it blew, or how fiercely, it only ruffled it for a time, but to no greater extent * The place where this convent stood is still called Austin Friars ; a dingy locality in which offices and Boards of Directors are plentiful. t It is doubtful whether any real Commission was formed. In a letter, part of which is printed in the Harleian Miscellany (vol. 5, p. 595), Thomas Crom- well writes to Browne that the king “ was fallen absolutely from Rome in spiritual matters within his dominion of England,” and that it was “ his royal will and pleasure to have his subjects there in Ireland to obey his commands as in England.” He then nominates George Browne one of his Commissioners “ for the execution thereof.” Some time after Archbishop Browne writes, how, “almost to the danger and hazard of his temporal life,” he laboured to carry out the king’s commission, but he makes no allusion to his fellow-commissioners, if he had any. Staples, Bishop of Meath, in a letter to St. Leger, denouncing his brother of Dublin, seems to allude to a pretended commission, when he says, “And he [Browne] hath gotten one Sylvester joined with him, as he saith, in our Master’s authority.” Letter of 15th June, 1538, in Collections on Irish History hy the Very Rev. L. F. O'Renehan, p. 170. IN IRELAND. 3 than to keep it in graceful motion, and to show its folds of green and gold to greater advantage in the light of heaven. George Browne’s episcopate was neither a successful one nor a happy one; his attempts to propagate the new doctrines were an utter failure. The Catholics, Irish and Palesmen, were reso- lutely opposed to him, and he tells his master, Thomas Crom- well, that it was ** almost to the danger and hazard of his tempo- ral life that he was endeavouring to procure the nobility and gentry to due obedience, in owning his highness [the king] their supreme head as well spiritual as temporal.” The people were still worse, for he thus naively writes of them: — ‘^The common people of this isle are more zealous in their blindness than the saints and martyrs were in the truth at the beginning of the Gospel.”* Henry had another Irish prelate devoted to his interests — Staples of Meath — who was appointed to that See in 1530. “ He was instrumental and active in all the changes of religion which happened at this time,” says Ware, “ and joined with Arch- bishop Browne in opposition to his metropolitan. Primate Dowdall, in introducing the Liturgy in English, for which he afterwards suffered” — that is, suffered the loss of his bishopric in Mary’s reign. Although these two men are said to be joined in carrying out the king’s wishes, there existed a fierce and continual feud between them. Why this was so does not clearly appear, but it probably arose from rivalry, as each, no doubt, had his heart fixed on the primacy. Browne also quarrelled with the Lord Deputy, Leonard Gray, than whom no man of his time did more for the advancement of English interests in Ireland. Writing to Thomas Cromwell in May, 1538, he, amongst many other com- plaints, says : — “ I think the simplest holy water clerk is better esteemed than I am [that is by the king’s friends in Ireland]. I beseech your Lordship, in the way of charity, either cause my authority to take effect, or else let me return home again, into the cloister. When I was at the worst [there] I was in better care than I am now ; what with my Lord Deputy, the Bishop of Meath, and the pecuniose prior of Kylmaynham. God send remedy, who ever have your lordship in his safe tuition.”! It would have been some consolation to Archbishop Browne, in his troubles, had he secured the confidence and approbation of that monarch for whose cause, as he asserted, he had endured so much; but Henry seems to have regarded him * Letter to Thomas Cromwell of 4fch Sept., 1535. Given in extemo by Cox, Vol. 1, p. 246. t Browne to Cromwell, 20th May, 1538. 4 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH as a vain good-for-nothing clerical coxcomb; which opinion he took care to express to him in the strongest terms. He tells him that before his promotion, he had manifested much zeal and affection in preaching the Word of God, and in promoting his [the king’s] interests, but he now finds to his utter disappointment, that he [Browne] neither devoted himself to the instruction of the people, nor to the advancement of the king’s interests. He further accuses him of “ lightness of beha- viour,” “pride,” of “glorying in foolish ceremonies,” of delight- ing in “ we” and “us,” and so dreaming of “ comparing himself so nearly to a prince in honour and estimation, that all virtue and honesty had almost departed from him.” He warns him to reform himself, or that he who had made him an archbishop will remove him and put “ a man of more virtue and honesty in his place.” Poor Browne’s letter in reply is one of the most striking specimens of slavish meanness to be found ; and it is brought out into still higher relief by the manly independence of the Catholic prelates, who set the royal tyrant at defiance. Browne writes to Henry that the perusal of his “ most gracious letters” not only caused him to take “ fruitful and gracious monitions,” but made him “ tremble in body for fear of incurring his majesty’s displeasure.” He makes the best apology he can for his short- comings in the king’s service, and for his affectation of princely dignity, and finally beseeches the king “ to accept the same, as if he [Browne] were personally doing his duty, approaching his majesty on his knees.” He adds, that “should he preach the Gospel of Christ otherwise than he had previously done before his majesty,” in denouncing the “ Papistical power,” or should he be remiss in advancing the king’s interests in every way, he fervently prays that “ the ground might o'pen and svjctUovj him.”* At what period Browne, ex-friar and archbishop, entered what he assumed to be the state of matrimony, does not appear. Accord- ing to the civil law it would have been illegal to do so before the 19th of February, 1549, the third year of Edward the 6th’s reign. By an Act of that year (cap. 21), marriage was permitted to such persons in holy orders as could not remain continent; “ although it were better,” the Act recites, “ not only for the estimation of priests, and other ministers in the Church of God, to live chaste, soul and spirit, from the company of women ;” but considering the many inconveniences which arose from a * See both letters in Dr. O’Renehan’s Collections, pp. 164-5. About the same time Henry wrote to Staples of Meath a letter of similar import as that addressed to Browne (1537). IN IRELAND. 5 state of compulsory chastity, it was enacted that “ all laws and canons forbidding the marriage of priests shall be void of what- ever state, condition, or degree.” Celibacy, however, was strongly recommended to such clerics as could remain continent. This Act was repealed by Mary. Dowdall, who had been deprived of the primacy in Edward’s reign, because he opposed the introduction of the Liturgy in English, and who had prudently retired to the Continent, returned soon after Mary’s accession, and was restored to his See of Armagh. He held a Synod at Drogheda to reform the abuses introduced in the two previous reigns, and in April, 1554, he, in conjunction with Walsh, bishop -elect of Meath, received a eommission, authorising him to deprive married clergy of their benefices, under which Browne of Dublin, Staples of Meath, Lancaster of Kildare, and Travers of Leighlin, were removed from their Sees. Bale of Ossory and Casey of Limerick fled beyond the seas.* Politically, Mary’s Grovernment in Ireland was of a piece with that of previous reigns, and no one ever hunted down the native chieftains more vigorously, or seized their territories with more unflinching zeal, than did her Lord Deputy, the Earl of Sussex.f She, however, took the same measures to re-establish Catholicity in Ireland as she did in England, so that her reign in this country is j ustly enough described by O’Sullivan in these words : — “ Henry and Edward having been taken out of life, Mary, a Catholic queen, who married Philip the 2nd, a Spanish prince, began to reign. Although she endeavoured to sustain and increase the Catholic religion in Ireland, her lieutenants and advisers desisted not from inflicting injuries upon the Irish ’’^: The way in which most Protestant historians commonly deal with Mary’s efforts to restore the Catholic religion in Ireland, is, to use a mild word, most ingenious. They write as if Protestant- ism was a settled well-established form of worship amongst us at her accession, and they enlarge upon the persecution which bishops and others underwent in being deprived of their livings * Cox, Vol. 1, p. 299. Ware’s Bishops, p. 92. I have not been able to discover the text of this Commission. Walsh, in a petition addressed to Philip and Mary regarding the temporalities of his See, and his consecration, says he was sent into Ireland, at his own cost, by com- mission, to deprive certain married bishops and priests. Calendar of Patent and Close Rolls, p. 337. temp. Philip and Mary. t Sussex does not appear to have been hampered with anything like strict principles: “Under Mary he had called a Parliament to establish, under Elizabeth he called another to abolish, the Catholic worship.” Lingard’s Eng- land, Vol. 6, p. 155. Ed. 1855. X Hist. Cath. Hibernioe, cap. 10. Dub. 1850. 6 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH by her, 'whereas the original legitimate Catholic ocupiers of those livings were in many cases (as in DowdalFs) still alive, having been deprived by mere secular authority in Henry and Edward’s reigns. The new doctrines were still crude and unsettled — forced, to be sure, on the servants of the Crown by the sovereign’s authority, but totally unaccepted by the people, even within the narrow limits of the Pale. Moreover, they were scarcely a gene- ration old, the life and soul of them being the denial of the Pope’s supremacy ; which dogma, as everybody knows, was founded on Henry’s quarrel with the Pope, because he would not allow him to repudiate his lawful wife, Catharine, and so bastardize his daughter Mary, then reigning by rightful succes- sion, and by the undoubted will of the people. That she should endeavour to restore the religion which had flourished in Eng- land from the days of St. Augustine, and in Ireland from the days of St. Patrick, was the most natural proceeding in the world — a consequence in fact, of her position then as a Catholic princess, and the daughter of Catherine of Arragon.* Elizabeth succeeded to the throne in November, 1558. She hastened to reverse Mary’s legislation regarding the Catholics, and not only to re-enact the statutes of Henry and Edward against them, but to pass new ones of wider application and greater severity, although she had gone to Mass and received Communion according to the Catholic rite before, and for some time after, her accession. Thomas Earl of Sussex was Mary’s Lord Deputy in Ireland, at the time of her death ; he was continued in the post by Elizabeth, as he made no difficulty about changing sides, or reversing his own chief acts during Mary’s reign. f Cecil, in an autograph letter, sent him his instructions, one of which was to call a Parliament, which he accordingly did. This, the famous Parliament of 1559-60, was constituted as follows — * Henry was nineteen years married to Catharine before any scruples arose in his mind as to the lawfulness of his marriage ; and it is conjectured, not without cause, that they might not even then have arisen, only he had fallen in love with Anna Boleyn, the beautiful and accomplished daughter of Sir Thomas Boleyn ; who told him with spirit, when he revealed his passion, that “ she could not be his wife, and would not be his mistress.” t The native annalists say of Sussex that ” He polluted the temples of God throughout Ireland ; uprooted and overturned the altars wherever he met them ; expelled the orthodox bishops and the clergy and all members of religi- ous houses ; drove out the nuns from their sanctified retreats, and introduced the Lutheran religion, the Lutheran Liturgy and the heterodox faith, w-here- ever he could .” — Ariliur MSS.y quoted in Lenihan’s History of Limerick, p. 95 . Note : — j: At this period the legal year began on 24th March, the civil year on the 1st January ; hence transactions occurring in January, February, IN IRELAND. 7 1. The number of members summoned to the House of Commons was seventy-six ; of these twenty were returned from ten coun- ties, and fifty-six from twenty-eight cities and boroughs, for the most part the fortresses^ and therefore the strongholds of the English. (2) There was no county member for any part of Ulster or Connaught, although parts of both provinces had been represented in preceding Parliaments. Both provinces together had only six borough members ; so that two provinces — the full half of Ireland — had only six members out of seventy-six, and no county member at all ! Munster sent but sixteen members. Three provinces, therefore, Ulster, Munster, and Connaught, taken together were represented by just twenty-two members; the other fifty-four having been returned by a 'portion only of the province of Leinster. “ Will anyone pretend that the votes of such a Parliament can, with any propriety, be considered the will of the Commons of Ireland ? but this is the Parliament, it is pretended, that established the Protestant religion in Ire- land.”* * In Henry’s and Edward’s time the chief religious changes in- sisted upon were the royal supremacy and the English Liturgy ; in Elizabeth’s instructions to Sussex, as to what the Parliament was to do regarding religion, many more changes were suggested. This Parliament sat just one month, from the 12th of January to the 12th of February, 1559-60, during which the Penal laws called for by the queen were enacted. They were chiefly the following : — 1. That [what was hu'niorously called in the statute] the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiri- tual be restored to the Crown, and foreign authority (meaning the Pope’s) be abolished. f 2. That the queen and her succes- sors may appoint Commissioners to exercise ecclesiastical juris- diction. 3. That all ofdcers and ministers ecclesiastical or lay ; all ecclesiastical persons, and everyone that has the queens wageSj shall take the oath of supremacy, on pain of losing his office. 4. He that sues Livery, or takes orders must take the said oath. This was no trifling work for a one month Parlia- and up to 24th March were civilly belonging to one year, legally to another. This Parliament was held between the 12th of January and the 12th of Febru- ary ; legally these months belonged to 1559, civilly to 1560; hence both dates are given as above 1559-60. * “ Dissertations on Irish History," By Rev. M. Kelly, D.D. t Elizabeth did not approve of being styled Head of the Church, because Calvin blamed her father Henry for having assumed it. In the oath pre- scribed for Archbishops, Bishops, Prelates, and Clergy the wording was : — “ That the Queen’s highness is the only supreme governess of this realm and of all other her Highness’s dominions and countries, in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things and causes as temporal.” Sanders, p 298, 8 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH ment. By these enactments there could be no more priests ordained in Irelaud, for all who took orders should swear the queen and not the Pope was head of the Church. To sue Livery meant the action of a rightful, laivful heir, asking legal posses- sion of property which was incontestably his ; but he could not get legal possession of it without taking the oath of supremacy ; so that by this law Catholic proprietorship was annihilated in Ireland. 'No son could succeed to his father’s estate, no heir could inherit property he was heir to, unless he first swore on the Holy Evangelists that Queen Elizabeth was supreme head of the Church. 5. That he who shall maintain or advance foreign jurisdiction (the Pope’s, of course) shall, for the first offence, lose his goods, and if they be not worth £20 (a sum equal to about £100 at present) then he is to suffer a year’s im- prisonment without hail ; and if the person be an ecclesiastic he shall likewise lose all his benefices. For the second offence prcemunire was incurred, which meant contempt of the Sove- reign and Government, and for which almost any punishment short of death could be infiicted. A third offence was to be adjudged high treason. Here is an onslaught upon the Catholic Faith in Ireland almost before the queen had ceased to attend Mass. The machinery seems to have been singularly complete and effective for its purpose — the destruction of Catholicity in Ireland in a single generation as far as English influence extended ; but Elizabeth had other arrows in her quiver, one of which was the “ Plantation of Munster.” No doubt she and her council looked forward to the “ plantation” of all Ireland, but as this could only be accomplished by degrees, they seized the opportunity afforded them by the attainder of the Earl of Desmond to begin with Munster. The great power and vast possessions of this nobleman stood in the way of Elizabeth’s design of peopling Munster with Eng- lish Protestants, and when he broke into rebellion against her, she and her advisers were rather pleased than otherwise, as it gave them the opportunity of getting rid of him, and of thereby clearing the ground for the Plantation. If he were permitted the quiet enjoyment of his estates, it is hard to see what object he could have had in quarrelling with Elizabeth, a proceeding, as he well knew, of the utmost danger to him. The common opinion, therefore, seems by no means an ill-founded one, that he was goaded into rebellion for the purpose of declaring him a traitor, that his lands might be seized. The most trivial reasons are given by Cox and others for suspecting him of disloyalty — one being that when invited to the English camp by the Deputy, he IN IRELAND. 9 excused himself from going there. And good reasons had the wary Earl for remaining away, the Deputy’s camp being a highly dangerous place to Irish Chieftains ; for in those days it was a common trick to induce them to enter an English walled town or camp on pretence of a friendly interview being desired by the Lord Deputy or officer in command ; but once there, unheard of charges were trumped up against them, on the strength of which they were made prisoners, and sent as such to Dublin or London, whence they did not always return. Examples of this occurred in the Earl’s own family, he himself being one of the examples ; for after the treacherous attack made upon him by the Butlers at Affane in 1565, where he was wounded and takenprisoner by them, he was sent to England, to account for his conduct; and when there, to use an expressive phrase of Cox’s, “ he was clapt into the Tower,” where he had plenty of leisure to nurse his broken After some time a commission was issued under the broad seal of England and directed to Sir Henry Sydney, the Lord Deputy, to take the examinations of Desmond and Ormonde, and to make his award thereupon. But besides the Commission, Elizabeth wrote a private letter to Sydney touching the affair ; it was intentionally obscure, but through its hazy phraseology one can see, and she meant that Sydney should see, the great desire she had that the decision should be against Desmond, and in favour of Ormonde. Doubtless, a chief reason for this was that Desmond was a Catholic, and the recognised head of the Catholics, whilst Ormonde like previous members of his family, was an active favourer of the Protestant cause. Sydney saw Elizabeth’s mean- ing, and declined to carry on the investigation unless other Commissioners were sent from England to assist him ; this having been done a reconciliation was patched up between the two Earls, which, however, was not of long duration. Some writers say Sydney’s Government of Ireland was so severe that even the queen took alarm at it. I am bound to say I think the matter was rather the other way ; for great as Sydney’s severity was, it does not seem to have been sufficient to satisfy * The following anecdote is given in nearly all the Histories of Ireland : “As the Ormondians conveyed him [Desmond] from the field, stretched on a bier, his supporters exclaimed, with a natural triumph, ‘ Where is now the great Earl of Desmond !’ he had spirit to reply — ‘ Where, but in his proper place ? Still upon the necks of the Butlers.’ ” Leland quotes for this, Cox and the Lambeth MSS. so frequently referred to by Cox ; but Dr. O’ Donovan does not believe it to be authentic, and says, “This anecdote, however, is from Romantic writers, and not worthy the serious notice of the historian.” Four Masters, Vol. 5, p. 1603, note. 10 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Elizabeth. Her panegyrist Cox says of him, that after settling the province of Ulster “ as well as possible,” he returned to Dublin with the applause of the people [of the Pale]. Cox adds: — ‘‘ But howsoever these good services were relished in Ireland, where the fruits of them were felt and perceived, yet in England they were so little regarded that no mention was made of them in any of the public despatches ; but on the contrary the public letters to the Deputy were full of reprimands and sharp reflections, because of the insolence of the Earl of Desmond ; and therefore the Lord Deputy did endeavour his own revocation, and at length prevailed to get license to go to England.”* The fact was, Ormonde had the ear of the queen and her council far more than the Lord Deputy had, whom Ormonde kept denouncing as a favourer of Desmond, although this was by no means the case ; but it was a heinous crime in Elizabeth’s eyes to show any justice or fair play to Desmond. A full exposition of the causes which led to the outlawry of Gerald, sixteenth Earl of Desmond, (commonly called the great Earl) at the close of 1579 does not come within the scope of this work; it may, however, be fairly assumed that one of the principal causes was a longing desire to seize on his vast pos- sessions. The English, civil and military, in Ireland, were greedy adventurers with small pay ill paid; and they, therefore, relied more on their expected share of the forfeited estates than upon any regular income. Peace was hateful to them, and they excited and promoted rebellion in every way they could, that rebels might be shot down or hung up (no matter which) to clear the land for their occupation. The government in England was quite aware of this feeling, winked at and encouraged it ; the Queen herself regarded forfeited lands in Ireland as the fitting reward of those adventurers, and the speediest and readiest means of protestantizing the country, for she had more than hinted that the insurrection of Shane O’Neill was all the better for the loyalists, as it would leave plenty of lands for them.f On the death of the Earl of Desmond in 1583, six hundred thousand acres of land, his property and that of his adherents, were declared forfeited to the Crown. J This at once opened the way for carrying out the long meditated scheme of the plant- * Cox, p. 306. t Haverty, p. 403. t The quantity said to be forfeited was 574,628 acres, but these figures were founded on imperfect and fraudulent surveys ; the real acn age was much greater. IN IRELAND. 11 ation of Munster. In the 28th year of her reign the queen caused to be drawn up an elaborate plan for peopling that province with her English “ loving subjects of good behaviour and account;” persons of Irish origin being specially excluded. Of course such as did not acknowledge her spiritual supremacy were not regarded by her as of “ good behaviour and account,” and hence those English who still persisted in remaining Catholics could have no share in the lands of Munster. In fact some years later, in a renewal of the Commission for the parti- tion of those lands, one of the orders she gave to the Commis- sioners was to diligently examine whether any Euglishmen, being recusants, are come thither to inhabit, and how they behave themselves."^ In pursuance of this scheme letters were written to every county in England, to encourage younger brothers to become “ undertakers” in Ireland. The plantation was completed in seven years, in which brief period all Munster was to become English and protestant ; for not only were persons of Irish origin * Patent and Close Rolls [Ireland] reg. Eliz. p. 355. Recusants, in England, were at first such Catholics as refused to take the oath of supremacy. Formal legislation against them may be said to have commenced in the first years of Elizabeth’s reign, when by an Act [cap. 2] of her first Parliament, Recusancy was made punishable by an ascending scale of penalties from the forfeiture of real and personal property to the infliction of death. In latter times, Recus- ants were, by the laws of England, enmeshed in such an iron net- work of penal statutes, that the wonder is how any of them continued to exist at all. 1. It was recusancy to assist at Mass. 2. It was a much greater act of recusancy to say Mass. 3. It was recusancy not to attend the Protestant Church on Sun- days and other appointed days. 4. A Recusant could not inherit, purchase, or otherwise acquire lands. 5. He could not hold any public office. 6. He could not keep arms in his house. 7. He could not appear within ten miles of London, under a penalty of £100 (a sum equal to £400 or £500 at present). 8. He could not travel more than five miles from home without a license. 9. He could not bring any action in law or equity. 10. He could not have baptism, marriage or burial performed except by a Protestant minister. In England itself Recusancy was not so severely punished ; but Judge Saxey, one of James the First's judges, maintained that the English statute by which the above penal- ties were enacted, applied to and was in force in Ireland : a view, which although favoured by Sir John Davys, w’as new, unconstitutional and indefen- sible. There was no Irish statute authorising the banishment of the Catholic clergy, so the right of doing so was assumed by a Proclamation published in 1604 by Sir Henry Bruncker, President of Munster, in which “ all Jesuits, Seminaries, and Massing priests” were commanded to leave the country. Sir John Davys knew there was no /mA law, and, therefore no law binding in Ireland, to warrant this, but with his habitual cleverness he said that “ if a proclamation were made by the king for their banishment, they would pro- bably fly, or if the}* could be apprehended they might be imprisoned in Ireland, or else sent into England, where the penal laws would take hold of their per- sons.” At this time there was no Habeas Corpus Act to prevent imprisonment unless for some breach of the known laws : the king’s pleasure was enough. See Preface to Calendar of State Papers, vol. ii., pp. Ixxi. — ii. — iii. 12 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH excluded from becomiug Colonists, but the English Colonists were forbidden to have Irish as labourers or servants of any kind, the rule laid down by the queen being that “none of the meer Irish were to be maintained in any family.” In the days of Catholic agitation when our patriots fired the people’s blood by telling them they were “ hewers of wood and drawers of water” in their native land, they understated the case ; what they should have said was that we were excluded by the English law from the poor privilege of hewing wood or drawing water for the oppressors to whom that land was parcelled out by queen Elizabeth — parcelled out, too, as a reward for cutting the throats of our ancestors, the rightful owners.^ And this spirit con- ^ tinned to our own times, for I am old enough to remember hearing the people say that no protestant family would hire a Catholic servant, if they could get a protestant ; and when they were necessitated to hire a Catholic, they often compelled him to attend the family protestant prayers morning and evening. The plantation of Munster did not succeed as well as Eliza- beth had hoped. The English Undertakers, having come to Ireland to live as gentlemen at large, had no idea of soiling their hands with work of any kind ; so they coolly ignored their contract with the queen, by permitting the natives to become their servants and slaves. But to those wretched beings all spiritual aid from their own pastors was denied ; they could assist at no Mass ; were permitted to see no priest ; they were doomed to live like heathens or embrace the new doctrines, which they refused to do with a perseverance that seems almost incredible. To be sure priests lurked in hiding places, hoping now and then to get the opportunity of doing something to keep the faith alive in their hearts, but this was at the peril of their lives, as was soon shown by the martyrdoms that followed. Sydney in a tour he made through Munster, marked his route with continuous slaughter, and gloried in it. In one of his despatches he says : — “I write not the names of each particular varlet that hath died since I arrived, as well by the ordinary course of law, and the martial law, as flat fighting with them, when they would take food without the good will of the giver, for I think it no stuff worthy the loading of my letters with; but I do assure you the number of them is great, and some of the best, and the rest tremble; for most part * Cox, Vol. 1, p. 393, describes an “ Undertaker” to mean a person who came as a Colonist to Ireland, accepting the conditions laid down for the Colo- nisation, and who undertook to carry them out. It was probably expected, too, that he would enact the part of a modern Undertaker, by burying as many as he could of the “ meer Irishe” under their native sod. IN IRELAND. 13 they fight for their dinner, and many of them lose their heads before they be served with supper. Down they go in every corner, and down they shall go, God willing.”* Connaught suffered much in Elizabeth’s reign, but was not and could not be cleared for an English protestant colony as Munster was. In previous times the battle in Ireland was between English and Irish — Saxon and native — but a new element was introduced by the new religion, and to be English and loyal after the old pattern was no longer sufficient; in Elizabeth’s time, one should be protestant as well as English, before being regarded as loyal. This was too much for many of English descent, who stoutly refused to give up the religion of their fathers. The great English or rather Anglo- Norman House of Fitzgerald was the foremost in standing by the old faith. In fact the Geraldines were appointed by the Pope as heads and leaders of the league which he formed to sustain it. The nobles of Connaught, as Catholics, were, it may be pre- sumed, well inclined to join this league, but if there had been no league and no religious persecution, the savage cruelty of Fitton’s government was quite enough to goad them into rebellion — a cruelty only surpassed by that of Sir Richard Bingham, who has been most justly styled the “ Cromwell of Connaught,”! * Sydney’s despatches preserved in British Museum MSS. Cot. Titus, B. X. (^Sav. 396). t By Rev. M. Kelly, in a note to his edition of O’Sullivan’s History, p. 127. 14 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH CHAPTER II. The Catholic religion was not persecuted in Ulster during Elizabeth’s reign, because she did not possess the power of enforcing her enactments against it there. O’Neill, O’Donnell, and the other chieftains either held the province against her lieutenants, or made such terms with them as secured compara- tive independence until the close of her reign, when they were subdued by Mountjoy. The queen, indeed, appointed her own bishops to various sees in Ulster, but they were merely titular, and could not secure the temporalities, a chief, if not the only object with them. No one can doubt that she had the will to abolish Catholicity in Ulster, as she had done in Munster, as far as penal laws could do it. The Northern chieftains knew this, and hence the first demand they made for her Commissioners in 1596, was “a general liberty of conscience;” a demand which is ridiculed by the English historian, Cox, who says: — “None of them had ever been persecuted or disturbed about religion.”* No ; they had not, and for the reason just given ; it was not the want of will but the want of power, as is evidenced by occur- rences in other parts of the country that prevented Elizabeth from persecuting them. Moreover, if the Queen’s Commissioners had no intention of interfering with liberty of conscience, what was the meaning of refusing a condition that merely went to secure it If But Elizabeth did mean to destroy Catholicity in Ulster as she had, or hoped she had, destroyed it in Munster, for nothing was left undone by her to make the Irish nation protestant. * Cox, p. 408, where he calls the conditions asked for by the Irish “unreason- able terms and where he further says the Irish were so “ stiff” as to refuse going into Dundalk to meet the Commissioners. The old story of coaxing the Irish into their fortified towns; but on this occasion the Northern chiefs wisely insisted on meeting the Commissioners in the “ open.” t“ The cause they have to stand upon those terms, and to seek for better assurances, is the harsh practices used against others by those who have been placed in authority to protect men for your majestie’s service, which they have greatly abused.” Captain Thomas Lee’s Brief declaration to the Queen concerning abuses of her government in Ireland. MSS. Trin. Col. Dub. Plowden, Vol. I. App. XII. “ When upon the death of a great lord of a country, there hath been another nominated, chosen and created, he hath been entertained with fair speeches, taken down into his country, and so for the offences of other men, indictments have been framed against him, whereupon he hath been found guilty, and so lost his life.” Ibid. IN IRELAND. 15 The complete extinction of the native race, and the replacing of them by English protestants was her design and determination ; but she was not content to level one or two pieces of her reforming artillery at the devoted head of popery, the whole armoury of persecution was ransacked to find weapons for its annihilation. The people were exterminated in Munster, and were doomed to the same fate throughout the entire country, as opportunity might serve. The great chiefs were driven into rebellion, outlawed and plundered ; and where their heirs could be got hold of, they were educated as protestants by the state ; or else some member of the Chieftain’s family was received into favour to be in due time, set up as a rival to the lawful heir. And this is what happened in the case of Hugh O’Neill. Mr. Froude, who seems to hate Ireland and Catholicity with a morbid fanaticism, and who is not restrained by such feeble obstacles as facts, from endeavouring to overwhelm both with infamy, thus writes of Hugh O’Neill: — “In Hugh O’Neill, Earl of Tyrone, Elizabeth was now to find the most formidable Irish antagonist which either she or her predecessors had encountered. To her he was indebted for life, rank and fortune. He was the son of the Baron of Dungannon, whom Shane had murdered, and the grandson of the first Earl Con. Beyond doubt he would have shared his father’s fate, had he not been sent to England, and thus taken care of. He Avas brought up at the Court as a Protestant, in the midst of the most brilliant circle Avhich any capital in Europe could show. No pains were spared to make him. a fit instrument for the reclamation of his country; and when of age, he received the patents of his grandfather’s earldom, and returned to Ireland. The wolf which is treated as a dog remains a wolf still. O’Neill bound himself to permit neither monk nor priest within his jurisdiction who would not conform to the established religion.^ He became himself a Catholic. ^He promised to introduce English law to abolish the Irish customs among his subjects, conform himself to English rule and order. He assumed the title of “ The O’Neill” as the symbol of the Irish independent sovereignty, and he adopted the customs he had forsworn.”* * The chief point put forward in the above passage is the scandalous ingratitude of Hugh O’Neill to his kind and almost 1 Articles agreed on by the Earl of Tyrone, June 17, 1590. Calendar, Carew, MSS. p. 38. 2 Ibid. p. 105. [These are Mr. Froude’s references and are cor- rect, so far as they are references,'] *The English in Ireland in the 18th century by James Anthony Froude, M.A., pp. 58-59. 16 THK BATTLE OF THE FAITH affectionate patroness and protector, Queen Elizabeth. But her patronage and protection had nothing heroic or generous about them ; they were on the contrary of a very selfish kind. Her reason for taking him up at all is plainly stated by her biographer and great eulogist, Camden, who says, under the year 1567 : — “ Hugh, commonly called Baron of Dungannon, who was the nephew of Shane (his father, Matthew being Shane’s illegitimate brother), then ; a despised youth, afterwards the disturber, nay the calamity of his country, is received into Queen's favour^ that she might have a rival to set up against Turloch Leuinach, should he fall away from his engagements.”* “ He was brought up at the Court as a protestant,” says Mr. Froude. Let us examine this off-hand assertion a little. That he appeared at Elizabeth’s Court pretty early in life is certain, but that he was brought up there as a protestant or brought up there at all in the ordinary sense of the phrase is not only doubtful, but cannot have been the fact. That Elizabeth had the double object of making him a protestant and making him a fit instrument for the reclamation of his country,” according to Mr. Fronde’s notion of “reclamation,” is clear enough; in which case the reclamation would mean the spoliation of the rightful owners of the soil, as happened in Munster, and the rooting out of the Catholic religion. The first recorded visit of Hugh O’Neill to England happened in 1567, when he and other Irish notables accompanied %dney to that country, who went over to explain and defend his conduct in the government of Ireland. We cannot fix Hugh O’Neill’s precise age at that time, but a fair estimate of what it was can be arrived at. He died at Kome, on the 20th of July, 1616, at wLich time he was, according to the Bev. 0. P. Meehan, in his seventy-sixth year. But this age is only conjectural, being founded, Father Meehan assured me, on calculations made for him by the late learned Dr. O’Donovan, the translator and" annotator of the Four Masters.f If this calculation be correct, Hugh O’Neill was born sometime in the year 1540, and would be in 1567 twenty-seven years of age. But even let us make a considerable deduction from the seventy-six years, and let us translate juvenis as we may, O’Neill must have had his religious opinions well formed before the Queen took him up as the rival of Turlough Luineach, * Camden’s Eliz. Ed. Batav. 1625, p. 130. Juvenis the phrase in Camden is rendered “ a young man then little set hy'^ in the transl. printed in London in 1688 : a phrase, according to the style of the time “in little esteem.” 1 The ages is given in p. 444 of “The Fate and Fortunes of Hugh O’Neill and Rory O’Donnell,” by the Rev. C. P. Meehan. Unfortunately the papers containing the calculations above alluded to were destroyed. IN IRELAND. 17 and could not therefore be said to have been brought up at the Court of Elizabeth as a protestant. To prove that Hugh O’Neill was a protestant when he returned from England, Mr. Froude quotes a condition agreed to by him in 1590, namely: — “That he maintain, not wittingly, in his country, any monk, friar, nun or priest that shall not conform themselves to the religion now established.”* So far from this condition proving O’Neill to be a protestant at that time, it was evidently made by the Privy Council, as with a man they believed to be a Catholic and the favourer of priests and nuns. “He became himself a Catholic,” says Mr. Froude. When ? we may fairly ask. He was a protestant in 1590, according to Mr. Froude, and his becoming a Catholic is proved, he seems to think, by a passage in a document drawn up four years later, namely in 1594. At p. 105 of the Carew MSS. whence the above quotation is made, this passage occurs : — “ If his purpose [i.e. O’Neill’s] is to rebel, it must proceed either from a combination with Spain, (which may be suspected) as well in regard he is of the Romish Church . . . . i . , or else an ancient Irish practice to hinder the proceeding of English justice.”! Surely this could not have been written of a man (and so important a man), who had been, as Mr. Froude asserts, a protestant three or four years previously. He would have been called a renegade, an apostate, or something of the kind ; or at least it would have been said, “ who is now of the Romish Church,” or “ who has lately conformed to the Romish Church.” But no, it is simply set down as a well known accepted fact that “ he is of the Romish Church.” Indeed we learn from Captain Lee’s “ Brief Declaration to the Queen” that one of the accusa- tions that O’Neill’s enemies were in the habit of making against him in England was, that he was a papist, although somewhat of a lax one ; for he attended protestant service when he happened to be with the Lord Deputy ; which he did, it may be supposed, either through policy, or as a mark of respect to the Queen’s representative. At any rate this fact is recorded in the following passage, as a proof of the liberality of the papist O’Neill : — “ But your majesty is or shall be informed that he and his lady are papists, and foster seminaries, &c. True, it is, he is affected that way, but less hurtfully or dangerously than some *Articles agreed to by the Earl of Tyrone before the Privy Council dated 17 June, 1590. Calendar Carew MSS. 1589-1600, p. 38, obi. To “maintain not wittingly,” is a very guarded phrase, and instead of quoting it, Mr. Froude paraphrases it as above. “ O’Neill bound himself P &c., which differs from the original and is much stronger. t “ A Discourse for Ireland.” Ibid. p. 105. B 18 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH of the greatest in the English pale ; for when he is with the State, he will accompany the Lord Deputy to the Church and home again, and will stay and hear service and sermon ; they, as soon as they have brought the Lord Deputy to the door, depart, as if thej^ were wild cats, and are obstinate ; but he, (in my conscience) with good conference would be refori»ed ; for he hath only one little cub of an English priest, by whom he is seduced for want of his friends’ access to him, who might other- wise uphold him.”* So that in 1594 Captain Lee expresses hopes of the conversion to protestantism of the man that Mr. Froude asserts was a protestant all his life, until he became a papist some short time before Captain Lee’s ‘‘ Brief Declaration to the Queen” was written. It is evident Captain Lee had no desire to bring O’Neill’s Catholicity prominently before the queen ; his business, as a kind of friend and apologist of O’Neill, was rather to minimize it, and keep it in the back ground as much as possible, which he does as well as he can ; but it was too patent to be ignored. Another proof that O’Neill did not become a protestant is, that he never lost his iufluence over the people of Ulster, which must have undoubtedly happened had he renounced the religion which they cherished and fought for. This view of the case receives a singular corroboration from the reception which the young Earl of Desmond met with from the people of Munster. In 1579 three Spanish ships arrived at the coast of Kerry, with some soldiers, who landed at a place called Smerwick, where they fortified themselves. They were sent by the King of Spain to create a diversion in favour of his own arms in the Netherlands, his subjects there being in revolt against him, whom Elizabeth was aiding with men and money. They came also to aid the Catholics in resisting the persecution to which they were subjected, because they would not renounce their religion. They were under the guidance of James Fitzmaurice, one of the Geraldines ; and the Earl of Desmond, without any sufficient cause, was suspected of favouring this attempt of his kinsman, for no matter what the Earl did or avoided doing, he was sus- pected. If he came within the power of the English, he was • “ Brief declaration to the queen concernins; the abuses of her government in Ireland, by Captain Thomas Lee,” written in 1594. MSS. Trin. Col. Dub. Appendix to Plowden, Vol. I. p. 36. The meaning of the last passage in the above quotation from Captain Lee is that all intercourse between O’Neill and his English friends had come to an end. The Lord Deputy had denounced him as a traitor, because he did not punish Maguire, who, together with O’Rourke was in open rebellion ; whilst his father-indaw, and, at the same time, his most mortal enemy, Marshal Bagnal, was continually impeaching him at the Court of England. IN IRELAND. 19 made a prisoner ; if he refused to come, he was denounced as a traitor. Referring to the landing of the Spaniards, Cox says : “ The Earl of Desmond continued his profession of loyalty, and pretended to act separately, but could not, by any means, venture himself in the camp, or in any walled town.’’ Small blame to the Earl, who had already without a shadow of a cause, served an apprenticeship of imprisonment in the Tower of London. “ However,” continues Cox, “ he sent his only son to be hostage of his fidelity, and the Countess brought the child to the Deputy a little before his death.”* The account of the transaction given by the Four Masters differs somewhat from that of Cox. They say— -the Lord Justice having pitched his camp in the neighbourhood of Kilmallock — “ Hither the Earl of Desmond came to meet them ; and he endeavoured to impress it on their minds that he himself had no part in bringing over James the son of Maurice, or in any of the crimes committed by his relations ; and delivered up to the Lord J ustice his only son and heir, as a hostage, to ensure his loyalty and fidelity to the Crown of England. A promise was thereupon given to the Earl that his territory should not be plundered in future ; but, although this promise was given, it was not kept, for his people and cattle were destroyed, and his corn and edifices.”f It was towards the end of the year 1579 that this child, the sole direct heir of the House of Desmond, was delivered up as a hostage to Sir William Drury, the Lord Justice, at Kilmallock. As fully twenty years passed between this event and the public appearance of the young Desmond in Ireland ; and as the annalists say he was seventeen years a prisoner in the tower, it would seem that he was kept in this country some two or three years after he had been consigned to the care of the Lord J ustice, before he was sent to England. In England his education was committed to that famous historical personage, Miler Magrath, Archbishop of Cashel, that he might be brought up a protes- tant.J * Cox, vol. 1, p. 358. t Annals of the Four Masters, 2nd Ed. p. 1777. X Miler Magrath, “ homo non tarn genere nobilis quam scelere clarus,” says O’Sullivan, [Gath. Hist.] was an Irishman, and a native of the County Fer- managh. At an early age he became a member of the Franciscan Order. He was appointed to the See of Down by Pope Pius the V., the temporalities of which he seems never to have enjoyed. Having apostatized at Drogheda on the 31st May, 1567, he was promoted to the See of Clogher by queen Elizabeth in 1570, but, as Ware informs us, received little or no profits from it. The Sees of Cashel and Emly becoming vacant the next year, he was appointed to the united dioceses. To them Lismore and Waterford were soon added,* but these were to be retained during the queen’s pleasure only. After some years 20 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH After spendiDg those seventeen dreary years of his young life in the hands of English jailors and Miler Magrath, it seemed to Cecil and Elizabeth that the time had come when he could be made use of to some advantage. The murder of his father in 1583 did not cause the Fitzgeralds to succumb, and they continued to give much trouble to the English in Munster ; the O’Mores were in open rebellion in Leix, and O’Neill was dangerously formidable in Ulster. Carew, the new president of he resigned Waterford and Lismore, but instead of them obtained Killala and Achonry. He was, moreover, made Vicar of Kilmacallan, rector of Infra duos pontes in Elphin, rector of Castleconnor and Skrine in Killala, Prebendary of Dougberne, and rector of Kiloi hin in Achonry ; thus bolding in all, and at the same time, ten livings, four of them being bishoprics. What a pluralist indeed did not the lately girdled and sandled Franciscan monk become ! No wonder that \^'are says : — “ he was a high favourite with queen Elizabeth.” But the most amusing part of the whole business is, that he was a continual absentee from all his Sees and all his cures, living chiefly if not entirely about the English Court ; so that the queen thought it necessary to excuse him to the Lord Deputy, which she did by telling him “ that the Archbishop had been a long time at Court about the affairs of his Archbishoprick, and had been employed in her services to her contentation ; she willed that no penalty be extended on him for his absence without licence.” He governed the See of Cashel over 50 years, “ during which time he made most scandalous wastes and alienations of the revenues and manors belonging to it.” [Harris’s Ware]. He was twice married. He died in the hundredth year of his age, having been bedridden during the last two years of his life. He built a tomb for himself in the Cathedral of Cashel, and wrote his own epitaph in Latin : a poor misty performance. The Catholics maintain that he was reconciled to the Catholic Church before his death, an assertion which protestant writers deny. What is certain in the matter is, that, about ten years before he died he sent a communication to the Provincial of the Irish Franciscans about his desire of returning to the Catholic Church, which caused the Provincial to repair to Cashel, where he had an interview with him, and by his directions wrote to the Papal Nuncio at Brussels. The Nuncio wrote a kind conciliatory repl}', which is given by Brennan [Eccl. Hist., vol. 2, p. 106]. Whether Miler ever carried out his intention or not there is no direct proof. Tradition says he did, but the general ways of Divine Providence are against the supposition. He went, or was sent to O’Rourke, Prince of Breifne, a little before his execution atTyburne in 1591 “ to counsill him for his soule’s health,” but O’Rourke rejected his ministrations with scorn, and rebuked him for his apostasy. He was one of the Commissioners sent to make peace with O’Neill and O’Donnell in 1596. O’Sullivan [Hist. Cath.] says he did not search after priests, nor try to seduce Catholics from their religion. See Harris's Ware, under “ Cashel f Brennans Ecclesiastical History, O' Sullivan'’ s Gath, History, llhe Four Masters, &c. The following curious entry is found in the Calendar of the Patent Roll of James Ist’s reign, p. 201. “King’s letter to Will. Knight to be coadjutor to the archbishop of Cashel, and to be allotted for his expenses the profits arising from the jurisdiction which the said archbishop’s son who is a recusant, now enjoys — also for a grant of the said archbishoprick of Cashel when vacant to the said Will Knight, 2Uh Sept, Sth of James L So that Miler Magrath’s son was a recusant and yet held “jurisdiction” in the protestant church! This Will Knight appointed to be the future archbishop of Cashel was no better than he ought to be. He never succeeded to that dignity, be- cause says Archbishop King “ Knight had appeared drunk in public and thereby exposed himself to the scorn and derision of the people. ” Harris’s Ware’s Bishops, p. 484, IN IRELAND. 21 Munster, felt, and the English privy Council agreed with him, that an important blow could be struck in favour of English interests by sending over the young Earl of Desmond, whose presence in Ireland they hoped “ would draw the ancient followers of the Earl of Desmond [his father] from James FitzThomas, the supposed Earl.”* Elizabeth released the youthful James Fitzgerald from his duress of seventeen years, admitted him to her presence, styled him Earl of Desmond, and sent him into Ireland attended by a certain Captain Price, who was to be a spy on all his movements. He was also accom- panied by his religious tutor Miler Magrath. But although the queen, with diplomatic courtesy, addressed him as Earl of Desmond, the title was given to him only conditionally. The patent, indeed, was made out, but it was to remain in the Lord President’s hands until he was assured, that the bringing of the Young Earl into Munster would have the success the queen expected from it. If not, all “ the extraordinarie clemencie” she had shown was to be recalled.! The young Earl’s visit turned out to be a most conspicuous failure, although great pains were taken to make it a success. His coming was carefully reported far and wide beforehand ; a servant wearing the Desmond livery having been through the country with the great tidings. When expectation was fully aroused, he landed at Youghal, in October, 1600. “ When he came to Cork,” says Cox, “ the inhabitants, finding he was a protestant, refused to entertain him, so that he was fain to obtrude upon the Mayor.” The account of his reception at Kilmallock I give from the Pacata Hiherniay because it is the fullest and because it is written from the English stand-point. It is as follows : — “ It was thought by all men, that the coming of this young Lord into Ireland would have bred a great alteration in the Province, and absolute revolt of all the old followers of the House of Desmond from James Fitzthomas, but it proved of no such consequence ; for the President, to make trial of the disposition and affection of the young Earl’s kindred and followers, at his desire, consented that he should make a journey from Moyalls into the county of Limerick, accompanied with the Archbishop of Cashel, and Master Boyle, Clerk of the Council (a person whom the Lord President did repose much trust and confidence in, and with whom he then communicated and advised about his most secret and * Pacata Hibernia, Book I., chap. 14. t Ibid. The Lord President was permitted to show the patent restoring the Earldom, but he was not to let it out of his hands. 22 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH serious affairs of that government) ; and to Master Boyle his Lordship gave secret charge, as well to observe the Earl’s ways and carriage, as what men of quality or others made their ad- dress unto him ; and with what respects and behaviour they car- ried themselves towards the Earl ; who came to Kilmallock upon a Saturday, in the evening, and by the way, and at their entry into the town, there was a mighty concourse of people, in so much as all the streets, doors, and windows, yea, the very gut- ters and tops of the houses were filled with them, as if they came to see him, whom God had sent to be that comfort and delight, their souls and hearts most desired, and they welcomed him with all the expressions and signs of joy, everyone throwing upon him wheat and salt (an ancient ceremony used in that province upon the election of their new mayors and officers as a prediction of their future peace and plenty) * That night the Earl was invited to supper to Sir George Thornton’s who then kept his house in the towm of Kilmallock; and although the Earl had a guard of soldiers, which made a lane from his house to Sir George Thorn- ton’s house, yet the confluence of people that flocked thither to see him w as so great, as in half an hour he could not make his passage through the crowff ; and after supper he had the like encounters at his return to his lodging. The next day being Sunday, the Earl went to church to hear divine service and all the way his country people used loud and rude dehortations to keep him from church, unto which he lent a deaf ear ; but after service and the sermon was ended, the Earl coming forth of the church, was railed at, and spat upon by those that before his going to church were so desirous to see and salute him; in so much, as alter that public expression of his religion, the town was cleared of that multitude of strangers, and the Earl, from thenceforward might walk as quietly and freely in the town, as little in effect followed or regarded as any other private gentleman. This true relation I the rather make that all men may observe how hateful our religion and the professors thereof are to the ruder and ignorant sort of people in that Kingdom : for, from thence- forward none of his fathers’ followers, (except some few of the meaner sort of freeholders) resorted unto him ; and the other great Lords in Munster, who had evermore been overshadowed by the greatness of Desmond, did rather fear than wish the ad- vancement of the young lord ; but the truth is, his religion, being * Probably as a token of welcome also. A curious coincidence is, that when the Czar, Alexander, arrived in Moscow on 2nd Deer. 1879, after having escaped being blown up on his journey, the municipality of the city presented him with bread and salt. The ceremony did not appear to have any connection with his escape, it seems rather to be an expression of fealty and welcome. IN IKE LAND. 23 a protestant, was the only cause that had bred this coyness in them all : for if he had been a Romish Catholic, the hearts and knees of all degrees in the Province would have bowed unto him.”* Had Hugh O’Heill been a protestant he would have received the same treatment from his Ulster followers ; and furthermore, no better answer than the above can be given to those writers who pretend that at this time the Irish were steeped in ignorance, and that they followed their chieftains not through any principle, but through a blind and slavish obedience. It is a tradition embalmed in the history of Ireland and in the hearts of its people, that the Geraldines were more Irish than the Irish themselves, but to this should be added that they were as Catholic as they were Irish. Was it not then a sad spectacle to see the heir of Desmond hooted and spat upon to-day by those who would have died for him yesterday ? The poor youth was not to blame ; when given as a hostage by his parents he was'a mere child, being about seven years old ; so he was robbed of his faith and the faith of his fathers, who were the trusted and unswerving champions of that faith, before he had years enough to judge for himself. f Having failed to fulfil the queen’s expectations, she, according to O’Daly, “ began to think little about him, and he immediately embarked for England, where he soon afterwards died, according to some, by poisoo.” * Facata Hibernia, Vol. 1, p. 163. Dublin Ed. 1810. The Master Boyle spoken of above afterwards became Earl of Cork. t Take the following as a specimen of a Geraldine’s Catholicity : — “ The queen growing weary of the contest, sent him [the father of the young Earl] offers of peace, nay, and promised to restore him to all his possessions and honors, pro- vided he delivered into her hands Dr. Sanders, the nuncio from Pope Gregory XIII, who, being an Englishman might be said to be her own born subject. To those who brought that message the pious earl replied, that he would never sacrifice the priest, although his enemies were hourly multiplying around him. ‘ Tell the queen,’ said he, ‘ that though my friends should desert my standard, and a price be set on my head, for refusing to do her bidding in this instance, I will never give her possession of this man’s person.’ ” “ Lord Ormond was the bearer of the queen’s offer and demand for the person of Dr. Sanders, and the earl’s refusal was immediately followed by a proclamation of outlawry against himself and his followers.” — O' Daly's Geraldines Earls of Desmond', translated by Rev. C. P. Meehan, C.C., M.R.I.A., pp. 107-8, 2 Ed. 24 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH CHAPTEK III. The laws made in Elizabeth’s first Irish Parliament, of which some account is given at p. 7, were put in force without delay, and whenever they seemed too slow or too merciful the queen’s officers had no difficulty in acting beyond them, or interpreting them in such a manner as to justify whatever they did. The oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were commonly tendered as one Oathj so that whosoever refused this composite Oath could be accused as a traitor, a rebel, or a recusant. During the queen’s reign this system produced a large number of martyrs in Ireland, amounting, as I have found by careful examination, to about two HUNDRED, besides very many confessors who suffered tortures of the most barbarous kind, together with various terms of imprison- ment, usually in the most loathsome and filthy dungeons. The vast majority of those martyrs were priests, who, in the very jaws of death kept the sacred fire of divine faith alive : many heroic laymen suffered also, and amongst the bright intrepid band there are to be found no less than bishops. Some of the punishments were unique in their ingenious wickedness, in the midst of which the burning and holy eloquence of many of the martyrs was not unworthy of the days of the Catacombs and the Colliseum. Some of the martyrs were seized whilst giving the last consolations of religion to the dying; some were dragged from the altar while offering the Holy Sacrifice, whilst many were slain in the Sanctuary itself. Some were cast from lofty towers, others were fastened to mill wheels and so mangled to death. On one occasion forty-two priests were put on board a vessel, under pretence of permitting them to leave the Kingdom, but when out some distance to sea they were all thrown overboard, after which the vessel returned to the port she had but just quitted.* Some were hung from trees with the cinctures of their religious habits. The Right Rev. Patrick O’Haly, a Franciscan, having been appointed bishop of Mayo, came to Ireland, accompanied by a priest of his order, the Rev. Cornelius O’Rourke, eldest son of the Prince of Breifne, who had resigned his claim to the princi- pality to become a priest. They were soon arrested by the spies who were set by the government to watch and examine all * Hib. Dum. p. 595. IN IRELAND. 25 suspicious strangers who landed in the country. They were immediately cast into prison, and after some time brought before Drury, the Lord Deputy, at Kilmallock in 1578. Being inter- rogated by him, they confessed their position and calling, and the business which brought them to Ireland ; Dr. O’Haly boldly declaring that he was bishop of Mayo, and had been sent by Pope Gregory the 18th, to guide and instruct the flock thus committed to him. “And do you dare,” asked Drury, “ to defend the authority of the Pope against the laws of the queen and parliament ?” “ I repeat what I have said,” replied the bishop, and I am ready, if necessary, to die for that sacred truth.” leather O’Rourke replied in a similar manner. They were sentenced to be first tortured and then hanged in presence of the garrison. In accordance with this sentence they were put upon the rack ; their bones were broken with hammers ; and needles were thrust under the nails. Having been tortured in this manner they were hanged upon a tree, where their bodies were left suspended during fourteen days as targets for the bullet practice of the soldiers.* As they were led to execution the bishop warned Drury that before many days he should appear before God to answer for his crimes. Fourteen days afterwards he died at Waterford in great agony. It is said that the Countess of Desmond betrayed the martyrs to their enemies. When the bishop and his companion arrived in Ireland, they sought out the Earl of Desmond, but he was unfortunately absent ; the Countess, however, received them hospitably, but after some days, as is asserted by some, betrayed them into the hands of the Lord Deputy.f She was a Butler, being the daughter of Lord Dunboyne.j The slaughter perpetrated about this time (Nov. 12, 1580) in the Goldenfort at Smerwick was dreadful in its every detail. Father Laurence Moore, Oliver Plunket, an Irish gentleman and a soldier, and William Walsh (called Willick in the Vatican MS.), an Englishman and also a soldier, were in the fort when it was surrendered by the Spanish commander, Don Jose, to the Corpus, vero, Episcopi per multos dies in ligno pendens, cum ssepissime milites haeretici, recreationis causS,, ab oppido exirent, ad sanctum illud corpus tanquam ad certam metam, seu scopum, sclopetis illudebant blasphemantes Deum et dicentes, ‘ego percutiam Papse Episcopum in capite alius dicit, ‘ego in pede,’ alius ‘in manu,’ etc. ; Ita Christi servus et vivus et mortuus injuria est affectus ab haereticis auno 1579 regnante pro rege.” Irish Martyrs during the reign of Elizabeth, by Eatl^er John Holing, S.J., quoted in Spicilegiurn Ossoriense, Vol. 1, p. 83. t Bourchier, p. 167 et seq. quoted by Lenihan in his History of Limerick, pp. 104-7. X Unpublished Geraldine Documents, part 2, p. 70. 26 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Lord Deputy Grey. The garrison gave up their arms (upon conditions, it is asserted), and no sooner had they done so than they, to the number of about seven hundred, were massacred by English soldiers told off for that bloody and murderous service.^ Father Moore and his two companions had been previously placed in the hands of the Lord Deputy, who reserved them for special punishment. The usual inducements were held out to them, if they would only acknowledge the queen as head of the church; to which temptation they answered that they were Catholics, and that in the profession and defence of the Catholic Faith they would persevere till death. They were led off to the forge of an iron smith, where their arms and legs were broken in three different parts ; the priest was subjected to the additional punishment of having his thumbs and forefingers cut off, because, as his executioners alleged, they had been so often employed in consecration of the Eucharist and had touched it,f During all that night and the following day, they bore their torments with invincible patience; finally they were hanged and their bodies cut into fragments. They received their crowns on St. Martin’s day, 1580.J In the same year Father Daniel O’Nielan, a priest of the diocese of Cloyne, was suspended by a rope from Trinity Tower in Youghal. His executioners having made the rope fast at the top of the tower swung him out from the battlements, not for the purpose of taking away his life, but to give him a shock, hoping, probably, to get some revelations from him. His weight broke the rope, and he fell to the ground, where, on descending from the Tower his torturers found him mangled and almost lifeless. Seeing that he was not quite dead, they had him tied to the waterwheel of a neighbouring mill, which, in its evolutions, soon tore him to pieces. Concerning the martyrdom of Most Rev. Dr. Dermod O’Hurley, the great Archbishop of Cashel, very full accounts have come down to us. He was born in the diocese of Limerick, and having passed with much distinction through all the * “ The deputy, Lord Grey de Wilton had taken Limerick, and against the capitulation, put to death the whole garrison .” — JiJarls of Kildare, by the Marquis of Kildare, 2 Ed. p. 214. f “ Sacerdotique pollicibus ac indicibus abscissis, e6 quod ssepissime Eucha- ristise Sacramenium consecrasset, iisque illud tetigisset.” “ Irish Martyrs during the reign of Elizabeth, by Father John Holing, S. J.” Spicilegium Ossoriense, Vol. 1, p. 88. f See O’Keilly’s sufferings for the Catholic Faith ; Spicilegium Ossoriense, by Right Rev. Dr. Moran ; Haverty’s Ireland p. 424, note, &c. Such different accounts of this carnage are given by various English officers that no reliance can be placed on any of them. IN IRELAND. 27 braDches of a liberal education at Louvain and Paris, be was honoured with the degree of doctor in Civil and Canon Law. He was appointed to the See of Cashel in a consistory held on the 3rd of September, 1580, in the pontificate of Pope Gregory the XIII. As soon as convenient after his consecration, he took shipping at some port in the north of France, probably Cher- bourg, whence he sailed for Ireland. At the port of embarkation he met with some other Irish ecclesiastics who accompanied him on the voyage.* He was beset by dangers on every side — from the master of the ship — from the sailors — from spies, informers, and government officials at the place of landing ; so that he could justly apply to himself the words of the great apostle of the Gentiles : — “ In journeying often he was in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils from his own nation, in perils from the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils from false brethren.’ '-f De Rothe says he landed at Skerries ; the state papers say it was at Drogheda. It is of no consequence to the history, at which place he landed, but De Rothe is probably right. Skerries lies about half way between Dublin and Drogheda, and would be likely to be chosen for a landing place, being a very quiet little port. There is a small island opposite Skerries, only a short distance out to sea — Holm-Patrick, — on which it would be prudent for them to land in the first instance, in order to reconnoitre the state of things on shore. After landing Dr. O’Hurley would be likely to proceed in the direction of Drogheda, rather than of Dublin, (1) because by doing so he would avoid the dangers of the capital ; and (2) as the priests who sailed with him were going to Newry, he would be likely to travel, at least for a while, in that direction with them. After his arrest the authorities could trace him to Drogheda and no further, and that being a good sea-port, they would naturally assume that it was there he landed. He proceeded, evidently from Drogheda, to Slane Castle, the residence of Thomas Fleming, Baron of Slane, where he was discovered by Robert Dillon, then Chief Justice of the Commons Pleas ; who, on the occasion of a visit to the Castle, engaged him in conversation, and concluded from the superior learning which he showed, that he was some important person in disguise. Some circumstances occurred which alarmed the Archbishop and he fled from Slane Castle ; meantime, the Chief Justice laid his suspicions before the Council in Dublin ; the Baron of Slane was summoned before * See Poem on his Consecration in Spicilegium Ossoriense, p. 80. t II Cor. xi. V. 26. 28 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH that tribunal, severely reprimanded, and told to produce his guest without delay. “Being tepid in faith, and bound up with the world he shrunk from what seemed destruction f so he ^‘hotly”pursued theArchbishop; overtook him atCarrick-on-Suir, and brought him back to Dublin, where he was tortured with the most fiendish cruelty.* * * § ‘‘ The executioners placed the Archbishop’s feet and legs in tin boots filled with oil ; they then fastened his feet in wooden shackles or stocks, and placed fire under them. The boiling oil so penetrated the feet and legs that morsels of the skin and even flesh fell off and left the bone bare.”t This was for the pur- pose of compelling him to deny his faith and turn informer ; but they did not consider the punishment sufficient for their purpose, although “the officer whose duty it was to preside over the torture, unused to such unheard of suffering, and unable to look on such an inhuman spectacle, or to bear the piteous moans of the innocent prelate, suddenly left his seat and quitted the place In a letter addressed to Sir Francis Walsingham, principal Secretary of State to the Queen, they complain that they cannot so terrify him as to make him “ tell the truth adding, We want either rack or other engine of torture to terrify him.” They, therefore, request that “ the said Hurley may be sent over to the Tower, and herein crave answer with speed.”§ The rea- son, then, for desiring to have the Archbishop sent to the Tower was, because they had in Ireland no instruments of torture powerful enough to shake his constancy, whilst the Tower, as they well knew, was the very arsenal of such instruments. For some reason this request was not complied with, and the non- compliance with it threw difficulties in the way of the Irish authorities, inasmuch as the ordinary mode of proceeding might be tedious, and even uncertain, as the law in Ireland differed from the law in England with regard to “ treasons committed in foreign parts and as the two Lords Justices, Adam Loftus and H. Wallop, were about to resign their ofiB.ce, to make room for Sir John Perrott, who had already arrived; and, further, as it was rumoured that the Earl of Ormond was on his way to Dub- lin to intercede for the Archbishop.|| The Lords Justices, therefore, thought it prudent to despatch O’Hurley before they had * De Rothe. t Stainhurst, quoted by M. O’Reilly, p. 65. X Ibid. pp. 29-30. § State Papers, Ireland, No. 7, 1583, Deer. lOtb, quoted by M. O’Reilly. II Ormonde was on the most friendly terms with Perrott, and had accom- panied him from Milford Haven to Ireland, when he was coming over as Lord Deputy. See PerrotVs Life, p. 140. IN IRELAND. 29 laid down their authority. Besides they had taken time hy the forelock, and had applied for permission to have him tried by martial law; which request was graciously conceded in the following terms : — “ In case you shall find the effect of his causes doubtful by reason of the affections of such as shall be his jury, and for the supposal conceived by the lawyers of that country that he can hardly be found guilty for his treason committed in foreign parts against her Majesty, then her pleasure is you take a shorter way with him by martial law. So as you may see it is referred to your discretion whether of these two ways your Lord- ships will take with him ; and the man being so resolute to reveal no more matter, it is thought meet to have no further tortures used against him, but that you proceed forthwith to his execution in manner aforesaid. As for her Majesty’s good acceptation of your careful travail in this matter of Hurley, you need nothing to doubt, and, for your better assurance thereof, she has com- manded me to let your Lordships understand that, as well in all other the like as in this case of Hurley, she cannot but greatly allow and commend your doings.”* As Perrott was to receive the sword of office on Trinity Sun- day, the Archbishop was executed on the previous Friday. Very early on the morning of that day he was taken out of the castle hy a private door. Sir H, Wallop himself (it is said) leading the way accompanied by a few guards only. He was hanged in a wood near the city, and buried in the half ruined church of St. Kevio, where it is stated many miracles were wrought, in conse- quence of which the old church was restored and very much frequented by the people.f Among the distinguished victims of Elizabeth’s reign was Brian- na-Murtha O’Rourke, Prince of Breifney. When the Spanish Armada was defeated and dispersed, it happened that * Public Record Office, London. State Papers Vol. CIX., No. 66, 1584, April 28. Quoted by M. O’Reilly in "Martyrs and Confessors in the reign of EliEabeth," p. 83. t St. Kevin’s Church was due south of the Castle. In the Catholic division the parish was long united to that of St. Nicholas Without, otherwise Francis Street. When Most Rev. Dr. McCabe, the late Abp. of Dublin was parish priest of St. Nicholas Without, he commenced the building of a church in this district, which has, for a considerable time been completed, and St. Kevin’s is once again a distinct church. The Rev. M. O’Kelly, in his edition of O’Sullivan’s Catholic History, gives the following foot note atp. 126 : — " Martyred on Stephen’s Green, and buried in the old churchyard of St. Kevin Analecta ii. p. 71 ; also Mooney, who says (p. 69) that it was in May. The Rt. Rev. Dr. (now Cardinal) Moran says his episcopate was crowned with martyrdom on 20th June, 1584. Sptcilegium Ossoriense, p. 80. As the execution was private it is probable it did not take place in Stephen’s Green, but somewhere near it. St. Kevin’s churchyard is only the length of a moderately sized street from Stephen’s Green. 30 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH three ships, belonging to that supposed invincible fleet, foundered in Sligo Bay, the crews of which were of course in the most help- less condition, being without food or necessaries of any kind. O’Kourke’s Castle of Dromahaire was some eight or nine miles inland, standing on the Boonid river at the head of Loughgill, to which he had about three hundred of the miserable creatures conveyed. This fact having reached the Lord Deputy’s ears, he summoned O’Rourke to give up the Spaniards to him, as pri- soners. O’Rourke replied that neither his honour nor his religion allowed him to surrender Catholics who had implored his pro- tection. For greater security he sent the Spaniards to his friend MacSwiney ^la Tuath, who had already given hospitality to Antonio de Leva, one of the commanders of the Armada, and a large number of his comrades. In order to punish O’Rourke for resisting their demand, the Lord Deputy and Bingham, Gro- vernor of Connaught, marched against him with a strong force, composed of English and Irish soldiers ; among the latter being TJlick Burke, Earl of Clanrickard and his people. O’Rourke’s chief strength consisted in about two hundred mercenaries who had been in the service of the Earl of Desmond previous to his death, in addition to whom he hastily assembled about the same number of his own people. Bingham marched on Dromahaire, and overcame O’Rourke’s small and ill-disciplined army. Being thus vanquished he made his way to MacSwiney to whom he had previously sent the Spaniards. With MacSwiney he remained upwards of a year,* after which he went to Scotland, hoping to obtain aid from James the 6th then reigning, who had for a long time kept up an active correspondence with the Irish chieftains, because he well knew they were thoroughly de- voted to his mother’s interests, and because their resistance to Elizabeth was favourable to his views. James had just made peace with Elizabeth, and being glad of an opportunity to pay her a compliment, he sent her the Prince of Breifney in chains. “ Bryan O’Rourke the Irish potentate, being thus, by the king of the Scots sent into England, was arraigned in Westminster Hall: his indictments were, that he had stirred Alexander McConnell and others ; had scornfully dragged the Queen’s pic- ture at a horse-taile and discut the same to peeces ; giving the Spaniards entertainment against a proclamation ; fier’d many houses, &c. This being told him by an interpreter (for he under- stood no English), he said he would not submit himself to a tryall of twelve men, nor make answer, except the Queen satt in person to judge him. The Lord Chief Justice made answer againe by an * Four Masters, This MacSwiney was Owen Oge. IxV IRELAND. 31 interpreter, that whether he would submit himself or not to a try all by a jury of twelve, he should be judged by law, according to the particulars alledjed against him. Whereto he replied nothing, but ‘ if it must be so, let it be so.^ Being condemned to die, he was shortly after carried unto Tyburne, to be executed as a trai- tor, whereat he seemed to be nothing moved, scorning the Arch- bishop of Caishill (Miler Magrath), who was there to counsill him for his soul’s health, because he had broken his vow, from a Franciscan turning Protestant.* * * § He gravely petitioned the Queen, not for life or pardon, but that he might be hanged with a gad, or withe, after his own country fashion, which doubtless was readily granted to him.f Being brought before the Privy Council he maintained his usual haughty bearing, whereupon one of them asked him ‘ why he did not bend the knee,’ on com- ing into their presence : he answered that ‘ he was not accustomed to do so.’ His interrogator then said ‘ are you not in the habit of bending your knee before images ?’ ‘ Certainly,’ replied O’Rourke. ‘ Why, then,’ continued the Privy Councillor, ‘ do you not do the same thing now?’ ‘ Because,’ said O’Rourke, ‘I always believed that the difference between God and his saints (whose images I venerate), and you is very great indeed.”J Towards the end of this reign, the English, some writers say, ceased to persecute the Irish Catholics as actively as they had done in the earlier years of Elizabeth’s reign ; they even tolerated, or at least connived at the saying of Mass, and the adminis- tration of the Sacraments by the priests ; but this they did as a policy, and on the advice of “ the wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind” — Francis Bacon, afterwards Lord High Chancellor of England. He suggested to his patron, Essex, two helps (prin- ciples the wicked suggestions cannot be called) towards the governing of Ireland : (1) Toleration of Popery for a time not definite ; (2) The weakening of the people, by disunion among themselves. Both means were put in force ; but when Mountjoy had succeeded in reducing Ulster, James the 1st soon defined the length of the toleration by putting an end to it ; the second means — the fomenting of division amongst the Irish themselves — has been used ever since with marked success.§ Dr. Charles O’Connor, who was the ninth in descent from this * MS. History of Ireland preserved in the Library of the Royal Irish Aca- demy, p. 452. t Lord Bacon’s Essays, quoted by Cox and also by Dr. O’ Donovan in note Vol. 6, p. 1906. Four Masters. t Dr. O’Donovan and others say it was to the Queen O’Rourke refused to bow. § “ There is no doubt but to wrestle with them now is indirectly opposite to their reclaim, and cannot but continue their alienation of mind from their go- 32 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Brian O’Rourke, says, the only crime -whicli O’Rourke could be accused of was, bis having received under bis roof some ship- wrecked Spaniards; men whom the most hardened barbarity would scarcely consider as enemies. A little before bis execution, Miler Magrath, appointed Archbishop of Cashel, was sent to him, to prevail on him to conform. “ No,” said O’Rourke, “ but do you remember the dignity from which you have fallen : return into the bosom of the ancient Church, and learn from my forti- tude that lesson, which you ought to have been the last on earth to disavow.”* vernment. Besides one of the principal pretences whereby the heads of the re- bellion have prevailed both with the people and the foreigner, hath been the defence of the Catholique religion ; and it is that likewise hath made the foreigner reciprocally more plausible with the rebel. Therefore a toleration of religion for a time not definite, except it be in some principal town and pre- cincts, after the manner of some French edicts, seemeth to me to be a matter warrantable by religion, and in policie of absolute necessity ; and the hesita- tion of this, I think, hath been a great casting back of the affairs there” [in Ire- land]. Previously Bacon had suggested for this country what he calls “ the princely policy,” which was to weaken by division and dissension of the Heads, See Letter to Essex Cabala 1591, p. 21, and Conversations touching the Queen’’ s service in Ireland enclosed in a letter to Cecil after the defeat of the Spaniards at Limerick, lb. p. 49. No date. * Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Charles O’Connor of Belanagare, p. 112, quoted by Dr. O’ Donovan. IN IRELAND. 33 CHAPTER lY. When James the 1st succeeded to Elizabeth in 1603, the Catholics expected a relaxation of the penal statutes passed against them during the reign of that princess, and plainly- framed, not merely to punish and beggar, but to annihilate them. They had good reasons for expecting clemency from James, as before his accession to the throne of England he kept up a secret correspondence with Spain, and even with the Pope. Moreover, during the reign of Elizabeth, “ he assisted the Irish privately more than Spain did publicly.’’* He may have had a desire to befriend the Catholics on account of their devotion to his mother, but being a Stuart, he had no notion of making sacrifices or undertaking risks for his friends ; so he played off party against party, giving to each soft words by turns ; his only real principle seeming to be that, whatsoever creed might be uppermost, he was determined to be King of England. At the beginning of his reign the Catholics certainly became importunate in asking concessions ; but instead of granting their requests he revived the penal laws against them, and made new ones severer than those of Elizabeth. The principal leaders of Catholic deputations that waited on him he sent to the Tower ; and he ignominiously dismissed the re- mainder. He issued a proclamation commanding all priests to leave Ireland on pain of death, and enforced the laws for compelling Catholics to attend the protestant services by the double penalty of fine and imprisonment. Their absence had been punished only by fine in Elizabeth’s reign. The imprisonment which James infiicted was perfectly illegal. Notwithstanding the efforts put forth during Elizabeth’s reign to abolish Catholicity in Ireland, no impression worth speaking of had been made upon it. A few, through fear, and some to save their property, outwardly conformed, and were called church-papists, but even these continued to give support and countenance to the priests. This is made very manifest by a letter of the protestant bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross to the Lord Deputy, giving an account of the state of his diocese. He says : — “ An English minister must needs be beholden to the Irishry ; his neighbours love him not, especially his profession and doctrine, they being compelled to hear him.” But what most grieved the Bishop was * Dr. Anderson’s Royal Genealogies, p. 786. C 34 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH the encouragement given by the conforming lords and gentlemen to priests and friars. He mentioned the name of several who live under the protection of Lord Barry of Buttevant, adding : — “ These Sir John countenances openly at his own table, . . . com- mending them to the world and applauding their profession, and manner of life. They be sturdy fellows, well fed and warm.’’* Again : — “ Besides these friars every gentleman and lord of the country hath his priests, and at these abbeys they usually meet. Every friar and priest is called father, yea, talk with the Lord Barry, the Lord Boche, or any man, no other name but Father; Father such a one ; Father such a one. So are they bewitched and blinded .... Massing is in every place ; idolatry is publicly maintained ; God’s word and his truth is trodden down under foot, despised, railed at, and contemned of all ; the ministers not esteemed — no, not with them that should reverence and countenance them. The professors of the Gospel may learn of these idolaters to regard their pastors.”t In June, 1604, John Horsfall, Bishop of Ossory, gives a return to the Deputy and Council of the names of the priests, thirty in number, then in the diocese of Ossory, whom the people obeyed and followed, despising and scorning the censures of the protestant church ; and that the Council might better imagine the truth of his report, he encloses a catalogue “ which shows how many Romish cater- pillars, abiding in his diocese prevent the hope of the Lord’s harvest.”} And that most devoted servant of the King, Justice Saxey, reports that the Jesuits, seminaries [sic] and priests, “ swarm as locusts throughout the whole kingdom, and are har- boured and maintained by the noblemen and chief gentry of the country, but especially by the cities and walled towns, massing and frequenting all the superstitions of the people in their obstinate errors, and their contempt of the religion of God, and His Majesty’s ecclesiastical law.”§ Up to this time the Irish parliament had passed no law for the banishment of priests, but Justice Saxey in his zeal, held the statute of the 27th of Elizabeth, for banishing them from the queen’s dominions, was of force in Ireland. Such a view had never been put forward before : it was unsound and could not be constitutionally maintained. Several years after in 1620-21, a much greater lawyer. Sir John Davys, laid down the correct * Preface to Calendar of State Papers of James Ist’s reign 1606 to 1608, p. Ixx. t Ibid. Calendar, vol. II., p. 133. t Ibid. pp. Iviii-ix. j Ibid, lix-lx. IN IRELAND. 35 principle in the English House of Commons, when he said : — “ It is expressly in the law books set down that Ireland is a member of the Crown of England ; yet this kingdom here cannot make laws to bind that kingdom ; for they have there a parliament of their own.”* It was bad enough for James to overstep the constitution of this kingdom by his proclamation of 1605, but it was utterly intolerable for one of his subordinates, Brouncker, Lord President of Munster, to have done so, nearly a year before the King’s Proclamation appeared. On the l4th of August, 1604, Sir Henry Brouncker, with the Council of Munster, issued a “ proclamation banishing all Jesuits, seminaries and massing priests out of all the corporate towns in the province, by the 30th September following; and offered a reward of £40 for every Jesuit, £6 8s. 4d. for every seminary, and £5 for every massing priest that should be brought to him.”f The King’s Proclamation for the banishment of the priests bears date 4th of July, 1605. In it he complained that his subjects in Ireland had been much abused by a report that he purposed giving liberty of conscience or toleration of religion to his subjects in that kingdom, contrary to the statutes therein enacted, and to the uniformity of religion then existing in his other dominions. He therefore thought it meet, says the Proclamation, to declare and publish to all his loving subjects of Ireland his high displeasure with the report, and his resolve never to do any act that may confirm the hopes of any creature that they shall ever have from him any toleration to exercise any other religion than that which is agreeable to Grod’s word, and established by the laws of the realm.” And as he had been informed that a great number of seminary priests, Jesuits and other priests range up and down the kingdom, seducing the people to their super- stitious ceremonies, “ he declares, publishes and proclaims, that it is his will and commandment that all J esuits, seminary priests, or other priests whatsoever, made and ordained by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from the See of Rome, shall, the 10th day of December next, depart out of the kingdom of Ireland. And that no Jesuit, seminary priest, or other priest ordained by foreign authority, shall from and after the 10th of December, repair or return into that kingdom, upon pain of his high displeasure, and upon such further pain and penalty as may be justly inflicted upon them by the laws and statutes of that realm. And upon the like pain he expressly forbids all his subjects * Life of Sir John Davys, p. xxx, preface to the Dublin Edition of his Histori- cal Tracts, published in 1787. t Calendar, Vol. 1, p. 190. Preface Ixxiv, Ibid. Ixi. 36 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH within that kingdom, to receive or relieve any such Jesuit, seminary priest, or other priest, who after the said 10th day of December, shall remain in that realm or return to the same or any part thereof.”^ This Proclamation, sweeping as it was, had by no means the full effect intended, for Sir John Davys, in his account of a journey made by him in Munster in 1606, gives the names of many priests he knew to reside in Cork, Clonmel, Limerick, Waterford and other places. He adds : — “ If your bishops and others that have care of souls were but half as diligent in their several charges as these men are in the places where they haunt, the public would not receive and nourish them as now they do.” The priests were equally harboured in the Irish districts and in the Pale. The flight of Tyrone and Tyrconnell in 1607, so far from depressing the Catholics, raised their hopes and expectations of foreign succour. Many of the clergy in exile appear to have entertained the same views, and began to return to Ireland. The Lord Deputy, writing to the English Council a few weeks after the departure of the Earls, says that priests and Jesuits had flocked into the kingdom in greater numbers than at any previous time, so that it was now a common taunt of the Irish, that they “ had more priests in the country than the king had soldiers.” Irish women have been always renowned for their virtue, but those who know them intimately, know that their faith is equal to their virtue, and to this faith the Deputy unwittingly pays a high compliment when he says : — “ They [the priests] have so gained the women that they are in a manner all of them abso- lute recusants. Children and servants are wholly taught and catechised by them [the priests], esteeming the same (as in truth it is) a sound and sure foundation of their synagogue.” And Brouncker in a paper written by him “ Concerning Reformation of Religion in Ireland,” corroborates and strengthens this view. He says : — “ Those that live in the country do daily see that they are all maligned and deadly hated as devils and hell hounds, if they come once to church, and their Catholic wives will neither eat nor live with their husbands if they be excommunicated for heretics, as presently they are by the priests if they come to the Protestant service.”t The flnes imposed for absence from the Protestant service may appear trivial at the present time, but as explained elsewhere * Calendar, Vol. I, p. 302. Preface Ixi. Ibid, p, Ixiii. More than a year before [in Feb. 1604] he had published a similar Proclamation in England. t Calendar, Preface, Ixxxviii. IN IRELAND. 37 they were onerous even upon wealthy Catholics, and as Sir John Davys says, “ even without any other addition, they were ruin- ous to peasants, churls and poor tradesmen.”"^ However, to put still more pressure on the wealthier classes, recourse was had to royal “ Mandates.” These were letters under either the Privy or Broad Seal, addressed to any of his subjects by name by the king, commanding his particular attendance at Church in the presence of the Lord Deputy or of the President of the Provinces of Munster and Connaught, or of their respective Councils. Dis- obedience in such cases was to be construed into a contempt of the Kings majesty, to be punished by the censure or decree of the Court of Star or Castle Chamber, with a heavy fine, and imprisonment during pleasure. The jurisdiction claimed in such cases was completely novel and unheard of.t On the publication of the King’s Proclamation of the 4th of July, lf)05, the nobility and gentry of the Pale sent a numer- * Letter to Salisbury, Calendar, Vol. 1, p. 466. t The word Star-Chamber has been long used to express a proceeding which, if not absolutely illegal, is regarded as unconstitutional and tyrannical. The word is supposed to be derived from the circumstance that the room in the palace of Westminster, in which what was afterwards called the Court of Star- Chamber met, had its ceiling ornamented with gilt stars. This Court cannot be clearly traced back to its origin, which is very remote. We find its powers abridged by several acts passed in the reign of Edward III. Its jurisdiction was regarded as an encroachment upon the common law, and as such, the Commons were always jealous of its existence. The business of this Court was transacted by the King’s Council, or that portion of it called the Concilium Ordinarium, to distinguish it from the Privy Council, whose members were the deliberative advisers of the Crown. But in later years the constitution of this Concilium was modified more than once. We find the Council of Star-Chamber in full operation in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign. It was at times found useful against great and powerful transgressors, who, in those days, were often strong enough to set the ordinary tribunals at defiance ; but in her reign it degenerated into a mere engine of state, which it continued to be until its abo- lition in the last Parliament of Charles I. (16 Car. c. 10.). In Ireland this Court was called the Court of Star or Castle Chamber. There were two modes of procedure in it ; (1) by information or bill and answer, in which case inter- rogatories were exhibited in writing to the defendant, to be answered on oath. But this was a tedious method, and very distasteful to Elizabeth and others, who desired to have their wishes carried out without delay ; and Lord Bacon discouraged the King from adopting this mode of proceeding, saying that “The Star-Chamber without confession was long seas" {Bacon's Works, Vol. iii.p. 37*2). Hence (2) proceeding by confession became the favourite met’nod ; in which case the business was conducted orally. In theory the accused coidd not he charged unless he made confession “ freely and voluntarily without constraint” (Hudson on the Star-Chamber) ; in practice, pressure of every kind, including torture, was wickedly and unscrupulously applied to the unfortunate accused, to wring a confession from him, and on such confession he was tried and con- demned. Under this system during the last century of the existence of the Court, every variety of punishment short of death was inflicted “ by a Court composed of members of the King’s Council, upon a mere oral proceeding with- out hearing the accused, without a written charge or record of any kind, and without appeal.” (Cyclopaedia of Political Knowledge. Art. Star-Chamber.) 88 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH ously signed petition to the Lord Deputy, praying for a suspen* sion of the order for the banishment of priests, until they should have an opportunity of laying the matter before the King ; but Chichester, so far from complying with their request, prepared another edition of the Proclamation, adding a new clause that brought the recusants within the grasp of the Star Chamber, which the first edition did not. Under this proclamation “Man- dates” in the King’s name were issued to sixteen of the chief Aldermen and citizens of Dublin, to attend the Mayor to Christ’s Church to hear divine service, and to present themselves there before the Lord Deputy and Council. The Aldermen being Catholics did not attend ; so they were summoned before the Court of Star-Chamber, where six of them were fined £100 each, and the remainder £50 each. “ The last part of the sentence,” writes Sir Arthur Chichester,” was that they should all remain prisoners in this Castle during the Lord Deputy’s and this Coun- cil’s pleasure.”* The Court further directed that part of the fines was to be expended in repairing the protestant churches in Dublin, and part in relieving poor scholars in the College [Trinity College], “ and in other necessary and charitable uses,” “in order,” magnanimously adds Chichester, ‘‘ that they might perceive that it was not their goods, but their conformity which was sought.’'! As soon as the Aldermen saw the storm coming they endea- voured to save their property by making it over to their children, apprentices and friends. The Attorney-General impeached this proceeding as “ fraudulent,” but a jury refused to find it so, whereupon he proceeded to the Star-Chamber, where all the judges having been summoned to assist, the deeds were con- demned as “ void and of no effect against the King’s execution.” This decision of the Star-Chamber pleased Sir John Davys im- mensely, who calls it “ the best precedent and example that had been made in that Kingdom for many years.”! These proceed- ings, unwonted and unconstitutional as they were, raised univer- sal indignation among the Catholics, and a “ Monster,” as it was then called a “ multitudinary,” petition was prepared ; and the principal men — Lords Gormanston, Trimbleston, Killeen, and Howth, complained “ temperately,” to Salisbury, that greater severity was used in the execution of the King’s Proclamation than was intended by his majesty ; in proof of which they referred him to the first edition of it, in which it was stated that the penalties should be limited to what was contained in the statutes * Calendar, Vol. 1, p. 350. t Ibid, 348. ! Ibid, p. 402, IN IRELAND. 39 of the realm of Ireland. They complained that the Star-Chamber was never before used as a “ Spiritual Consistory,” and that now for the first time men were brought before it for not going to church, and were there fined and imprisoned ; and that in the levying the fines their houses and doors were broken open, and their wives and children distressed and terrified.* * * § Lord Gormanston and Sir Patrick Barnewall, as representa- tives of the subscribers to the petition, being very pressing for an answer to it, Chichester summoned them with some others to appear before him, and committed them all to the Castle prison.f Sir Patrick Barnewall, behaved with much courage and manli- ness before the Council, and when Chichester insinuated that he saw reason for thinking there might be concert between the petitioners and the traitors who had contrived the late treason in England (alluding to the gunpowder plot). Sir Patrick Barnewall said “that the Deputy’s speech was wire-drawing and without pro* bability or likelihood.” Again, when the Chief J ustice (Sir J ames Loy) undertook to explain to him his transgression in defending the petition, telling him that he had spoken without proper respect for the place where he was, Sir Patrick told him to “ leave his carping,” and therewith struck the cushion before the Deputy sitting in Council, and held his hand thereon until he was reproved for it.} After another set-to with the Lord Deputy he was silenced, committed to the constable, and hurried off to prison.§ Sir Henry Brouncker, the President of Munster, was perfectly convinced that the carrying out of the persecuting laws and pro- clamations would make Ireland protestant, and compel it to be loyal ; “ for,” he says, “ without foreign aid their force is as nothing.” “ Therefore,” he quaintly concludes, “ with one heat- ing to make two nails, it (persecution) shall rivet the State of Ireland, plant religion, and kill rebellion.” How false this opinion was, appears from the state of Munster, on Brouncker’s death, which happened not long after he wrote the above words. On his death the Earl of Thomond, jointly with Sir Richard Morrison, was appointed to govern till a new* president should be named. That nobleman, writing to Salis- * Preface, Ixxxi. t Preface, Ixxxi. t Calendar, Vol. 1, p. 447. § Ibid, and Preface, Ixxxi. Sir Patrick declared that he was not the con- triver of the petition, but that he had “ scanned” it, and conceived it to be dutifully framed and void of offence. The device of “ Mandates” was never tried in England ; in Ireland it ended with the determined resistance of Sir Patrick Barnewall. 40 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH bury on 6tb September, 1607, says that he found the province swarming” with priests, and had placed some horse at Clonmel and Cashel, under good officers, hoping to take some of them, those towns being their chief resort ; but all in vain. They were so befriended that none of them could be caught.* * * § Brouncker’s severity had another effect; it caused petitions to be sent to the Lord Deputy against him from many of the mer- chants and inhabitants of the corporate towns. Chichester with his usual mean chicanery, said they only pretended “ to be alarmed as if they had not sufficient cause for real alarm. They were alarmed for their religion, and to preserve it they “ gave over their trades and betook themselves into the country, openly pro- fessing that they would abandon their traffic beyond the seas, rather than that the president [Brouncker] should be benefitted by the impost on wines ; and that they would rather incur any infliction of the law than he should gain any glory or commend- ation in the work which he intended,” — which was the extir- pation of the Catholic religion out of Munster.f Brouncker, in his zeal, overshot the mark ; and the Lords of the English Council became alarmed on receipt of Chichester’s letter, inasmuch as the loyalty of the towns was always the mainstay of English power in Ireland, and Brouncker’s intem- perate persecution imperilled it. In fact the towns had been built by the English, and continued to be inhabited chiefly by them and their descendants. The Lords of the Council, there- fore, felt it necessary to write to Chichester to make some relaxations ; saying that the loyalty of the towns had continued “ steadfast during the (late) rebellion, assisted by the Spanish forces, which makes them fit to be cherished, and therefore a special care should be taken for preserving their good affection.’’^ The same activity prevailed in Connaught, as in Leinster and Munster, in compelling the attendance of the Irish Catholics at the services of the Established Church ; and sharp fines were levied for non-attendance and contumacy. For instance we find William Lynch Fitzpeter fined £40, Oliver Browne £40, James Lynch Fitzmartin, £40, Marcus Lynch Fitzwilliam £30, Thomas Browne £20, § for refusing to attend. * Preface Ixxxix. t Chichester to the Lords of the Council, 4th August, 1607. t Preface, p. xcv. Lords of the Privy Council to Sir Arthur Chichester. 21st July, 1607. § jkem. Roll, Easter Term, 5 Jac. I.^Art 6, MS. Pub. Rec. Office Ireland. Quoted in Preface, p, xcix. IN IKELAND. 41 CHAPTER V. When O’Neill and O’Donnell had to fly from Ireland, what Bacon called “ the ripeness of time” had come. So James planted Ulster; which simply meant that he seized that province and parcelled it out to English and Scotch undertakers, who, as in the case of Munster, should be protestants ; and this condition he puts forward more formally than Elizabeth had done, it being particularly mentioned in the agreement with the undertakers “ that they should not suffer any labourer that would not take the oath of supremacy to dwell upon their lands.”* In the articles drawn up by the king’s order concerning the Eaglish and Scottish undertakers, who were to plant their portions with English and inland Scottish tenants it is laid down (article 7) that “ the said undertakers, their heirs and assigns shall not alien or demise their portions, or any part thereof to the meer Irish, or to such persons as will not take the oath which the said undertakers are bound to take by the former article.” This was the oath of supremacy, which no Catholic could take without denying his faith.f The king sometimes allowed the laws against Catholics to remain in abeyance, but this was caused by policy. ‘‘ James himself was convinced,” says Dr. Lingard, “that before he could extirpate the Catholic worship, it would be necessary to colonize the other provinces after the example of Ulster.”J In planting Ulster James was determined to avoid what he regarded as a grievous mistake in the plantation of Munster, namely, giving all the plains to the English undertakers, whilst the Irish were driven to the woods and mountains, which became, for them, so many strongholds, whence they made attacks upon the settlers, carrying off their cattle, and inflicting various other injuries upon them. As far as it could be done * Cox, Vol. 2, p. 15. “ Attempts were made to introduce order and the Pro- testant religion into Ireland by colonization. But as the ministers of James proceeded on the principle of spoliation, they engendered only distrust, irrita- tion and revenge, and left a plenteous harvest of rebellions and massacres to his successors.” — Wade's British History Chronologically arranged, 3rd Ed. p. 165. t The oath of supremacy was first passed in 1534, by the 26th of Henry the 8th. It constituted the king supreme head of the church instead of the Pope, enacting that, “Kings of this realm shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England." J Lingard’s England, Vol. vii, p. 94. Ed. London, 1855. 42 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH he, therefore, gave the English and Scotch settlers those locali- ties which, from a military point of view, were places of strength, besides being the richest and most fertile parts of the province ; while “ such natives as succeeded in obtaining small grants were not permitted to remain on the lands they had previously occupied, nor even anywhere in their native districts, but were dismissed into certain baronies set apart for them, and prover- bially known as the most barren in the respective counties to which they belonged. A few servitors, or military men, were located in each of such baronies, to watch and overawe the native grantees ; but as a matter of course, the servitors’ grants included whatever good lands could be found in the several bleak and rugged districts referred to.”* The quantity of land given away to undertakers, and for other purposes, by the con- fiscation of Ulster has been persistently understated in the most shameful manner. Sir Richard Cox sets down the whole of the escheated lands at 511,465 acres ; of which, he says, servitors and natives were allotted 116,330 acres. This entry is very cunningly devised ; servitors and natives are confounded, lest we should know how much or how little the natives obtained. We may feel assured, however, that the civil and military servants of the crown got the lions’ share, both in quantity and quality.! “ But whether the lands given to natives were good, bad, or indifferent, the servitors, in numerous instances, soon became their owners, especially where such lands were granted in tolerably large quantities to natives of rank. Indeed to make sure of this result in certain desirable cases, the servi- tors got grants of the natives’ lands in reversion, and entered into possession at the deaths of the latter, whilst the rightful heirs, generally children of high rank, were thus left desti- tute.”J For, as Dr. Leland says : — “ The planters had not only * Rev, George Hill’s Plantation of Ulster ; Preface, pp. ii, iii. t This entry of Cox’s forcibly reminds me of one made in the Irish Poor Law- Report for 1847, in which year (the Great Famine year) the people died in the workhouses at a most frightful rate. So frightful was the mortality, that the Commissioners, not wishing to state it exactly, headed one of their columns in their report thus — “Died or left the House.''' All under this heading left the House, but in regard to how many left it alive to face the famine, then raging outside, we are left in ignorance. X The Rev. G. Hill’s Plantation of Ulster, Preface iii. Those rightful heii’s had to take to the woods, whence they sallied forth from time to time, and levied black mail on the settlers. They were called woodkerneby the English, and became very formidable. To kill one of them was regarded as an act worthy of special reward, and Sir Oliver St. John (afterwards Viscount Grandison), who succeeded Chichester as Lord Deputy, boasts in a letter, that he had destroyed in three yeare 300 of “ those idle sons of gentlemen.” IN IRELAND. 43 neglected to perform their covenants, but the Commissioners appointed to distribute the lands scandalously abused their trusts, and by fraud or violence deprived the natives of those possessions which the king had reserved for them. Some indeed were suffered to enjoy a small pittance of such reservation, others were totally ejected.”* * * § Instead of the escheated lands being only about half a million of acres, as stated by Cox, it is now ascertained beyond doubt that they comprised six counties of Ulster, namely, Armagh, Tyrone, Coleraine, Donegal, Fermanagh and Cavan, which six counties contain about 3,698,000 statute acres, all of which were made available for the purposes of the plantation. Londonderry did not exist as a county before the Plantation. At that period it was formed out of several fragments ; one of the baronies of Tyrone, the three baronies which constituted the old county^ of Coleraine, a small portion of Donegal, and another small portion of Antrim, were united and constituted into the new county of Derry, which was handed over to twelve London Companies for plantation,t and was, therefore, called Londonderry.t The vast discrepancies in the statements as to the actual extent of the escheated lands arose from several causes, such as hasty surveys, corrupt manipulation on the part of those engaged in the survey, and in a great degree from the system adopted of setting down vast tracts of good pasture lands as “ unprofitable” and therefore not included in the acreage returned by the Com- missioners. As an example of this we may quote the fact that by the admission of the London Societies, two proportions belong- ing to them, which were returned as containing 2,500 acres were actually found to contain 10,000 acres. But a still more striking instance is that of Trinity College, ‘‘which was represented by plantation documents as obtaining just 10,000 acres in Ulster ; the reality being is that ‘ Old Trinity’ owns 96,000 statute acres of the escheated lands in the counties of Armagh, Fermanagh, and Donegal.”§ In a word, when Wentworth began in 1633 to look carefully into the patents of the Undertakers, in order to obtain money from them for his Royal Master, he found that those * History of Ireland, vol. 2, p. 467. 4ifo Ed. t Viz. The Mercers The Grocers (in part) The Drapers The Fishmongers The Goldsmiths The Skinners. X See Hill’s Plantation of Ulster, p. 354. § Ibid, Preface vi. The Clothworkers The Merchant Tailors The Haberdashers The Salters The Ironmongers The Vintners 44 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH patents, as a general rule, did not express more than the tenth part of the lands actually possessed by the patentees.* The Plantation of Ulster was, from the English point of view, a great success, and, humanly speaking, would have abolished the Irish race and the Catholic Religion in that province in a couj)le of generations, if the plans laid down were strictly carried out in practice. But this was not, and, in fact, could not be done. The patentees failed to secure the full number of English and Scotch tenants for all the lands, so they let farms to the natives, contrary to the terms of their patents ; and, in truth, they pre- ferred them as tenants, in as much as the Irish were far better rent payers than the English and Scotch, who felt that they had rights which the natives had not, and therefore acted with a certain independence ; whilst the Irish, quiet and submissive in all things, were thankful and even grateful for being permitted to exist. And so, under Providence, they did exist and multiply in spite of the fiercest and best planned exterminating laws, until once again, they are able, and well able, to hold their own among the picturesque hills and on the fair undulating plains of Ulster, the home of their fathers. [The Parliament of 1613], A Parliament was summoned in 1613 for various purposes, but chiefly, says Leland, “ to support the arrangement lately made that is, to give Parliamentary sanction to the Plantation of Ulster just effected. To that Parliament it was certain the constituencies would return a large majority of Catholics, who, in spite of the Penal laws, were still nine-tenths of the population. f But Chichester saw the difficulty, and explained to the King the necessity of finding a remedy for it. The remedy was obvious enough; a protestant majority must be secured at all hazards, to override the Catholic vote, and establish Protestant * Hill and Strafford’s Letters and Despatches, Vol. 1, p. 132 — “The City of London, which held the plantations of Londonderry and Coleraine of the Crown, was summoned for breach of agreements, by the non-performance of certain articles, and though the Company offered a compromise by paying £30,000, it was not considered enough, and on being brought before the Star Chamber the whole Plantation was declared forfeited and a fine of £70,000 imposed.” Cooper’s Life of Wentworth, Vol. 1, p. 323. t ‘ ‘ When Chichester had made a present of a fine horse to his royal master, the king asked if it were Irish breed, and being answered in the afihrmative, his majesty swore aloud, that then certainly it must be a papist ; for that he be- lieved all things produced in Ireland, even the very animals, were papists. And Chichester himself, in a moment of irritation at failing in withdrawing some persons of consequence from their religion, exclaimed, that he believed the very air and soil of Ireland were infected with Popery.” Annul. Suer, quoted in a note by Plowden, Historical Review, Vol. /, p. 108. IN IRELAND. 45 Ascendancy in the house.^ The Parliament was called in an underhand and irregular manner, the usual formalities not having been observed. One of the formalities omitted in the case was very important, namely, the sending beforehand to the peers of Parliament the heads of the bills intended to be introduced, and to this fact the King’s attention was directed by the five Lords of the Pale who addressed him in November, 1612. f The Catholics took alarm at the omission, and very justly, as the event proved; for one of the bills drafted was for the expulsion of the priests out of the country ; another for the erection of a “ convenient prison” for noblemen in the Castle of Dublin [Catholics of course] ; another for the distribution of monies forfeited by the Catholics for refusing to attend the protestant service ; another for doubling the fine for not attending it; another to provide that “ stubborn corporations” [i.e. that would persist in return- ing Catholics] should be deprived of the franchise ; and lastly a bill for the sending of noblemen’s children into England [in order to be brought up protestants]. But these acts did not eventually become law, probably on account of the bold stand made by the Catholics.^ Chichester resolved to create, by the King’s authority of course, a number of new boroughs sufficient to swamp the old constituencies, and place the Catholics in a minority. He went on creating till the new boroughs amounted to forty, some say even more, for all of which he had his own creatures elected ; few or none of these,” say the recusant Lords to the king, “had their residence or being, (as by law they ought to have) in those places, for which they appeared, many of them having never seen them.”§ Most of the new corporations had their patents and charters after the date of the commission for holding the * It is here we encounter for the first time, the phrase “ Protestant Ascen- dancy.” In later times it became the rallying cry and charter toast of the Orangemen. Among the many curses which have befallen this ill-starred land, few have brought greater mischief to our people than this vile, tyrannical and indefensible party Shibboleth. Chichester himself had been a pupil of the famous puritan divine, Thomas Cartwright, who was a professor and fellow of Cambridge, and who was deprived of both appointments on account of his strong puritan doctrines. t The Lords who signed this address were : — Gormanston, Trimbleston, Dunsany, Slane, and Louth. They expressed to him a fearful suspicion that the erecting into corporations “ the poor villages in the poorest country in Christendom,” tended to nothing else “ but that by the voices of a few selected for that purpose,^nder the name of burgesses, extreme penal laws would be imposed” on his majesty’s subjects. Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, Vol. I, p. 106. X Cox’s History, Vol. 2, p. 18. O’Sullivan’s Cath. History, 240 & 241. § Desid. Cur. Hib. Vol. /., p. 220. 46 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH parliament, and some after the writs of summons to attend parliament had been issued.* The number of knights and burgesses returned from the old and new constituencies amounted altogether to 232, of whom 226 appeared in the House on the first day of the session, the 18th of May, 1613. On that day parliament was formally opened, but there was no business done ; on the next day came the great contention about the election of a Speaker. The Protes- tants — Chichester’s party — proposed Sir John Davys, who was Attorney-General, for the post, whilst the Catholics, otherwise the recusants, as they were called, proposed Sir John Everard, some time Chief Justice of the King’s Bench. The Catholics maintained that the validity of the late elections should be examined before the election of the Speaker ; the Protestants held, that the House would have no authority to enter upon such examination until a Speaker was chosen. Eventually the election was proceeded with, and according to a paper drawn up by Edmond Wedhopp, Clerk of the House of Commons, 127 voted for Sir John Davys, being all protestants, and 97 f for Sir John Everard, all Catholics. The scrutiny, therefore, gave a considerable majority to the former ; but, as the Catholics main- tained that the members for the newly created boroughs were not legally members. Sir John Everard, according to them, had the true majority. The number of members returned for the new boroughs was 78, which when taken from the 127 votes given for Sir John Davys leaves only 49 votes for him from the old constituencies. The Catholics placed Sir J ohn Everard in the chair. The protestants put Sir John Davys in his lap, and after an undignified altercation Sir John Davys retained possession of the chair, and the Catholics withdrew, refusing to take any further part in the proceedings of the Parliament. * Ibid, p. 225. “He [Chichester] was effectually assistant to plough and break up (say Dr. Fuller and Mr. Prince) that barbarous nation by conquest, and then to sow it with seeds of civility ; when L.D.” (Lord Deputy) — (Lodge, Vol. 1, p. 318.) Chichester was well rewarded for the “ seeds of civility” sown by him in Ireland. Sir John Davys writing from the camp near Lifford, 12th September, 1609, says ‘ ‘ the bishops have rents and duties out of the Termon lands, but the proprietary is found in the Erenagh and their septs. There are more parcels of lands of this nature fouud in Enishowen than in any other barony, which diminishes not a little the value of the Lord Deputy’s [Chichester’s] portion.” Plantation of Ulster by Rev. George Hill, p. 176. Mr. Hill adds in a note : — “ Considering the immense extent of the Deputy’s grant — nearly 200,000 acres — neither he nor his friend Davys need have grudged the Erenagh and Termon lands therein, except indeed from the circumstance that these fragments were better cultivated than the other portions throughout Inishowen.” t “ The Declaration of the Protestants,” says “four score and Eighteen” (Calendar, 1611-1614, p. 403.) IN IRELAND. 47 The Catholic peers and members of parliament at once pro- ceeded to prepare an address to the King. It is dated the 19th of May, the next day, and is entitled “ The letter of divers Lords of the Pale.” It is couched in most respectful language, but it also contains a good deal of manly independent feeling. James regarded it as downright insolent. In it they say “ that^ many knights from counties and citizens and burgesses from cities and towns have, contrary to the true election, been returned, and in some places force, and in many others fraud, deceit, and indirect means used for effecting of this so lawless a course of proceeding. Neither can we but make known unto your majesty, that under pretence of erecting towns in places of the new plantation, more corporations have been made since the beginning of last month, or a little more, than are returned out of the whole kingdom ; besides, the number whereof (as we conceive it) contrary to your highness’s intended purpose, are dispersed throughout all parts of the kingdom and that in divers places where there be good ancient boroughs, and not allowed to send burgesses to the par- liament ; and yet these new created corporations for the most part are so miserable and beggarly poor, as their tuguria cannot otherwise be holden or denied than titvZi sine re, et fugimenta in rehus, for divers of which their extreme poverty being not able to defray the charges of burgesses, nor the places themselves, to afford any one man fit to present himself in the poorest society of men, though we must confess that some of great fashion have not sticked to abase themselves to these places, do appear. The Lord Deputy’s servants, attornies and clerks, resident only in the city of Dublin, most of them never having seen or known the places for which they were returned, and others of contemptible life and carriage ; and what outrageous violence was offered yesterday to a grave gentleman, whom men of all sorts that know him do and will confess him to he both learned, grave, and discreet, and free from all touch and imputation, whom those of the lower house, to whom no exceptions could be taken, had * The new boroughs are usually set down at 40, but the exact number was 39, nearly half of which were in Ulster. They were distributed as follows : — Leinster 6, Munster 8, Connaught 6, Ulster 18. Total 38. In a state paper of James the First’s reign a complete list of the old and new boroughs is given. Under the head of “Catherlagh” [Carlow] we find this remark — “None in the whole country, there being no town fit for it,” but the following note in Chi- chester’s hand is in the margin, “ The town of Catherlagh is, since the writing of the former, made a borough.” This gave 7 to Leinster instead of 6, and brought the total up to 39. The reason for giving so many boroughs to Ulster is of course quite obvious. Calendar of State Papers \^lreland'\ 1611-1614, p. 333, et seqq. 48 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH chosen to be their Speaker, we leave, for avoiding tediousness to your highness, to their own further declaration.”* They then ask permission to send a deputation to his majesty to explain the matter more fully to him. The same peers addressed a letter to the English Privy Council, in which they thus enlarge on the grievance of creating the forty boroughs: — “Coming according to our bounden duties into the parliament house, we find there 14 councillors of state ; 8 of the judges, having before received writs to appear in the higher house, all his majesty’s council at law, and the rest of the number, for the most part, consisting of attoruies; clerks of courts of the Lord Deputy’s retinue, and others his household servants, with some lately come out of England, having no abiding place here; and all these, save very few, were returned, from the new corporations, erected to the number of 40 or there- abouts, not only in places of the new plantation, but also in other provinces, where there be corporations of antiquity ; few or none of them having been ever resident, and most of them having never seen these places ; the rest, who possessed the rooms of Knights of Shires, save 4 or 6, came in by practice, and dishonest devices, whereunto themselves were not strangers; and some there were from ancient boroughs, who intruded themselves into their places, by as undue and unlawful means, as the knights and burgesses duly elected were ready at the parliament door to prove and avouch ; for redress whereof, we of the ancient shires, cities and towns, to whom no exceptions could be taken, being desirous to take the usual and accustomed course, what out- rageous violence ensued by the fury of some there, we humbly leave to your lordship to be informed by our declaration, where- unto a schedule, by direction of my Lord Deputy, subscribed with our hands, is annexed.”t Towards the close of the month letters arrived from England calling upon the recusant Lords to appear before the king by deputation, according to their request, but before this intimation was conveyed to them, “ The Lord Deputy, with all expedition, sent the Earl of Thomond, Sir John Denham, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, and Sir Oliver St. John, master of the Ordnance, into England, there to certify his majesty the truth of all the proceedings of the parliament in Ireland^ and to reply against the Lords Eecusants:”^ — that is, to * Desiderata Eib. Cur. Vol. J, p. 198. This Address was signed by 12 peers, viz. : — the Lords Buttevant, Gorman ston, Roche, Fermoy, Mountgarret, Killeen, Delvin, Slane, Trimbleston, Dunboyne, Louth and Cahir. f Desiderata Cur.Hib. 202-3, Vol. I. X Desiderata Eib. Cur. Vol. I, p. 206. In a part of the instructions sent to the Earl of Thomond, Sir John Denham and Sir Oliver St. John by the Lord Deputy Chichester, we read : — “ Whereas they [the Catholics] say that such as IN IRELAND. 49 reply against them before they had got the opportunity of putting their case. The Catholic Deputation consisted of the Lords Gormanston and Dunboyne, Sir Christopher Plunket and Sir James Gough, Knights, and William Talbot and Edward Fitz- harris, Esquires. The Catholics set about raising a subscription to defray the expenses of the Deputation, which when Chichester heard he sent proclamations through the kingdom forbidding the collection of any money for such a purpose, deploring, at the same time, with the most unusual consideration and sympathy, the manner in which the people “ were sorely vexed and molested by the collectors, and advertising all his majesty’s subjects that there was not any such matter as setting up of religion or liberty of conscience to be looked for, and that the lords and others that went over were sent by special commandment from the king’s majesty, to answer such abuses and absurd dealings as hath been committed in the parliament-house and elsewhere in other places of the realm, about choosing the knights of the shires and the burgesses of cities and corporate towns, to attend in that high court of parliament ; and likewise straight charge and command- ment was given in the said proclamation, that no more monies should be collected in that nature, but the money wheresoever collected should be redelivered back again to the owners, upon pain of great punishments to be inflicted : and so that collection ceased.”* The supplies having been thus cut ofi*, the king com- pleted the dilemma of the Deputation, by detaining them in London, under pretence that he had not time to investigate the business on which they had been summoned. After some con- siderable time, they sent a petition to him reminding him that they had been a long time awaiting his majesty’s “ gracious pleasure” touching the matter on which they had been sum- moned ; that their means were altogether spent, and the supply of their wants become hopeless, on account of the Lord Deputy’s proclamation against any voluntary contribution towards their “ necessary charges,” whilst in attendance upon his '‘princely plea- sure.” Of this appeal the partisan chronicler of Chichester’s rule were returned to their party were without exception, you may show the con- trary by showing how many of them were heads of rebellion in the last wars, how some of them can speak no Englisli, how they were all elected by a general combination and practice of jesuits and priests^ who charged the people upon pain of excommunication not to elect any of the King’s religion.” Ihid. p. 208. This was poor logic for Chichester to use, but it was quite “ good enough for the Jury,” the Jury in the case being James himself. * Ibid. pp. 210-11. D 50 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH in Ireland naively says : — “ There was not any speedy answer made to this petition, by reason his majesty was not then at leisure!'^ At length about the end of September the king appointed four “ worthy and very learned gentlemen for commissioners,” to go to Ireland and investigate upon the spot the complaints put forward by the recusant peers* * * § The first person named on this Commission was Sir Humphrey Winche, who had been, for some time, lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench in Ireland. But the whole commission was a sham and a make-believe, seeing that whereas the complaints laid before the King inculpated the Lord Deputy more than any body else, he was nevertheless joined in the patent with the other four as chief Commissioner y and as such became chief judge in his own cause. Yet in face of this James had the cool effrontery to tell the Catholic Deputation that he dealt with him [Chichester], not as with his servant, but as with a “ party meaning that he dealt with him as with an accused person ; as if in spite of all that was alleged against him he had found him a faithful servant."!' Chichester was in the North when the four English commissioners arrived, but at once hastened to Dublin, where he received them and gave them very honourable entertainment, and henceforward sat daily with them examining the controversies according to their com- mission.”J The King having “ well perused and considered the report of his commissioners,” sent forth a proclamation in which he declares his great disappointment at the ingratitude of those who had laid their grievances before him, inasmuch as, instead of being filled with gratitude and of making humble acknow- ledgment of his “ princely favours,” they had done nothing but importune him with exaggerated complaints against his state, and particularly against the person of his Lord I)eputy.§ With this proclamation was sent over a friendly letter from the King to Chichester, calling him to England, and also a commission for the appointment of Lords Justices during his absence. What little chance the Catholics of Ireland had of getting justice from James against his pet Lord Deputy may be learned from two facts : — (1) That for his energy and determination in rooting the Catholics out of Ulster and planting it with Scotch and English protestants he had been created Baron Chichester of Belfast, more than a year before the parliament of 1613 had * Desid. Hih. Cur. Vol. /, p. 237, compiled and edited by Mr. Lodge, t Ihid. p. 303. t Ibid. p. 283. § Ibid. j!?. 291. IN IRELAND. 51 been assembled, and, that (2) as a further mark of his royal favour, he was granted, as we have seen, the whole of Inishowen, O’Doherty ’s country, which consisted of about 200,000 acres, less the churchlands, which were set apart in it for the support of religion. After a full year’s delay, James, on the 12th of April, 1614, gave his final views to the Catholic Deputation, in a speech which he evidently regarded as a masterpiece of wisdom and ability. In it he tells them that the letter sent to him from Ireland before the parliament sat was “ rash” and “ insolent,” and that the one sent in the beginning of the parliament was “full of pride and arrogance, wanting much of the respects which servants owe to their sovereign.” Of fourteen returns made to that parliament, which the petition of the Catholics said were false returns, the King declared that only two of them had been proved to be so ; whereas, in his instructions sent to the Lord Deputy, he acknow- ledged thirteen out of the fourteen false returns, and ordered them to be annulled.* “ You complain,” he says, “ of the new boroughs ; therein I would fain feel your pulse, for I yet find not where the shoe wrings. For first, they question the power of the King, whether he may lawfully make them : and then you question the wisdom of the King and his council, in that you say there are too many made. It was never before heard, that any good subjects did dispute the King’s power in this point. What is it to you whether I make many or few boroughs ? My council may consider the fitness, if I require it. But what if I had created forty noblemen, and four hundred boroughs ? The more the merrier, the fewer the better cheer.”*!- He further says to them : — “You that are of a contrary religion must not look to be the only lawmakers ; you that are but half subjects should have but half privileges ; you have but one eye to me one way, and to the pope another way ; the pope is your father in spiritualihus and I in temporal- ihus only, and so have your bodies turned one way, and your souls drawn another way ; you that send your children to the seminaries of treason. Strive henceforth to become good subjects, that you may have cor unum et viam unam, and then I shall respect you all alike. But your Irish priests teach you such grounds of doctrine, as you cannot follow them with a safe conscience, but you must cast off your loyalty to the king.”J * Dedd. Hih. Cur. Vol. I, p. 324. f Desid. Hih. Cur. Vol. /, p. 308. t Ibid. 310. James evidently held to its extremest limit, what Pope calls, with happy point, “ The rtght divine of Kings to govern wrong. — Dunciad , Book IV ^ line 188. The speech from which the above passages are quoted is given 52 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH There were always great jealousies and rivalries amongst the English in Ireland, and the successful man was sure to have many enemies. This was the case with Chichester, who was the most successful adventurer of his time ; for while he did the King’s busi- ness in the Plantation of Ulster, he managed to seize for himself as much land as would set up two or three German Grand Dukes. Whisperings reached the King that he was extravagant with the public money, and that the King’s coffers in Ireland were not replenished as well as they might be. Chichester becoming aware of these charges, defended himself in a letter to Lord Ellesmere, and “ desires to be judged by his actions rather than by vague reports and malicious detractors.”* He was, however, recalled, but honoured by James with the Treasurership of Ireland, and with the title of Baron of Belfast. Sir Oliver St. John, long connected with this country, was installed Lord Deputy in his place, on the 2nd of July, 1616. St. John was a soldier, and had been Master of the Ordnance. His government was a continuous persecution of the Catholics. Even Cox, in his sly, dry way, says of him, that “he behaved briskly against the papists.”! Leland speaks more openly than Cox: he tells us that St. John’s conduct in the Parliament of 1618, “ showed him to be actuated with peculiar zeal against popery ; and whether provoked by the insolence of the recusant party, or that his nature and principles disposed him to treat them with less lenity than they had for some time experienced, he soon proceeded to a vigorous execution of the penal statutes.’’^ O’Sullivan says Sir Oliver St. John was a cruel man, who stirred up the heat of a tremendous tyranny, and that on assuming office, he was reported to have sworn that he would make sure that in two years all Catholic priests would be expelled from Ireland. in a different and considerably modified form in the Calendar of State Papers (1611-1614, p. 472) from the way in which it is given in the Desiderata Curiosa Rib. and Cox’s History. The speech in the two latter works is exactly the same, and is reported as spoken in the first person ; in the Calendar it is reported indirectly [so to speak], and is abbreviated and toned down in several places. The greater part of the passage quoted above about feeling the “ pulse” of the deputation, and not being able to discover “ where the shoe wrings,” is omitted in the Calendar. In a word the King’s speech as we find it in the Calendar is, in modern parlance “ cooked.” Yet of that toned down and modified report the Editors of the Calendar say that “ it exhibits within a short compass all the peculiarities of his mind and temper — a singular mixture of cleverness and folly, of jocose familiarity and imperious rebuke, of menaces and gibes, of arguments and puns, of solemn appeals and coarse buffoonery.” Preface, p. hi. * Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1615-1625, p. 115. t History of Ireland, Vol. 2, p. 33. f Leland’s History, Vol. 2, p. 461, 4to Ed. liV IRELAND. 53 To carry out this threat, he commissioned judges to go into various parts of the country to search for priests, and to compel laymen to give an account of themselves. He strictly exacted the fines imposed on Catholics for absenting themselves from the protestant service, and the prisons were filled with Catholics who refused to take the oath of supremacy.* He pushed forward the plantation of Wexford and says, not without a certain air of exultation, that he and his Council “ have toiled and laboured through three plantations, and are now ready to go on with a fourth.”! Writing to the Lords of the English Council about the Wexford people who had come to him, and who had ‘‘lately vexed their lordships with clamours against the distribution of land there,” he says, he “ heard them patiently and examined their pretences,” and then “ committed them to prison to terrify others.”! Complaints from various quarters having reached James about St. John, he recalled him in 1622, but at the same time created him Viscount Grandison of Limerick. Falkland, who succeeded Sir Oliver St. John as Lord Deputy, was sworn into office on the 8th of September, 1622 ; an event which was made remarkable by the sermon preached on the occasion. The preacher was Ussher, afterwards protestant primate of Ireland, but then bishop of Meath. Taking his text from St. Paul to the Romans (xiii. 4), “He beareth not the sword in vain,” he proceeded to deliver what was regarded as an exhortation to the Lord Deputy to put the persecuting statutes in force against the Catholics, who were thereby at once aroused to indignation; and even moderate protestants thought Ussher’s discourse, if not too severe, at least illtimed and imprudent. The protestant Primate, Archbishop Hampton, wrote to him about it; found fault with its severe tone, and asked him, like St. Peter (Acts xi) “ to give a fair public satisfaction” for it. Falkland himself appears to have been offended with the sermon, for Arch- bishop Hampton in his letter says: — “My noble Lord Deputy * Compendium of Catholic History, p. 335, Ed. 1850. The fine for each Sunday’s absence from the protestant service was one shilling, but that was equal in value to four or five shillings at present. Besides, there was added to the fine a sum of ten shillings or so, for fees of clerks, officers, &c., the present value of such expenses being about £2 10s. ; so that a Catholic had to pay something like £2 15s. per Sunday for absenting himself from the protestant ser- vice. The effect of these exactions was to empty the purses of the wealthy Catholics, and to force the poorer sort to fly from their homes, and hide them- selves in woods and caves, thus becoming utterly ruined from being compelled to give up their usual avocations, Calendar of [Irish] State Papers, 1615-1625, p. 329. t Calendar, 1615-1625, p. 305. t Ibid. 54 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH hath propounded a way of pacification, that your lordship should here satisfy such of the Lords as would be present, wherein my poor endeavours shall not he wanting.” The Archbishop further indicates to him that he is busying himself too much with external affairs instead of taking care of his diocese. His words are : — “ Withal it will not be amiss, in mine opinion, for your lordship to withdraw yourself from these parts, and to spend more time in your own diocese.”* * * § It is not at all certain that Ussher took any notice of this letter, although the Primate was his immediate superior, Meath being in the ecclesiastical province of Armagh. Cox, indeed, says that through the clamour of the papists, “ how groundless soever their clamour was, the bishop was fain to preach an explanatory sermon to appease it,”f but Mant says he failed to discover any verification of Cox’s state- ment. In the beginning of 1623 a Proclamation was published against Catholic priests of all denominations, ordering them to quit the kingdom within forty days, after which period all per- sons were forbidden to converse with them ; but it is probable this Proclamation was not very rigorously enforced, as the negoci- ations about the Spanish marriage at this juncture caused the King to suspend, for a time, the active enforcement of the penal statutes against the Catholics. A year after the above Procla- mation was issued, writing to Secretary Conway, Falkland says that out of confidence in the Spanish match many sovereigns and mayors of towns were chosen from among the recusants, but “ as their confidence has made them presume, so his doubtfulness made him to wink and forbear to question them for it.”J Should the match however fail to be concluded, he considers it important that the Oath of Supremacy should be administered to them, “which,” he says, “they would certainly refuse,” and would be thus liable to the Star Chamber, “ where good fines might be imposed upon the refusal.”^ In pursuance of his belief that thorough colonization was necessary for the extirpation of the Catholic Faith, James pro- ceeded to deal with Leinster and Connaught as he had dealt with Ulster. In July, 1615, Lord Deputy Chichester received a royal warrant empowering him to take surrenders of lands in the Province of Connaught, and in the County of Clare. This * See the Primate’s letter in full in Mant’s History of the Church of Ireland, Vol. I, p. 410. t Ibid. p. 412. X Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, IG15-1625, p. 456. § Ibid. p. 456. IN IRELAND. OD warrant was very artfully drawn up. On the face of it, its object seemed to be to give the existing holders new and better titles to their lands than they had previously possessed ; but the real intent was to plant those lands with English and Scotch, as Ulster had been planted. “ Elevated,’’ says Leland, “ with the success of the great Northern plantation, and the flattering terms in which it had been approved by the Irish Parliament, he resolved to execute the same schemes in others of the unsettled districts of the island.”"^ Sixty-six thousand acres between the river of Arklow and that of Slaney had been found by inquisition to be the property of the Crown. The real reason why this vast tract was found to belong to the Crown is naively given by Dr. Leland, where he says : — “ The maritime parts of Leinster between Dublin and Waterford had been, for ages, possessed by powerful Irish Septs, who had kept the English Grovernment in continual alarm, and harassed its forces by perpetual irruptions.”t A chief sept among these — that of the O’Byrnes — was robbed in the most outrageous manner of a district called the E-anelaghs.j: This was done by one Parsons, the ancestor of Lord Rosse, and a certain Lord Esmonde, who, on the false swearing of notorious thieves and criminals (pardoned on the condition of giving evidence against the O’Byrnes) seized the Danelaghs and cast the O’Byrnes into prison. At length some just minded, honour- able, Englishmen represented the case of the O’Byrnes so strongly to the King, that he was shamed into interfering. He caused the affair to be investigated. The O’Byrnes were honourably acquitted, but Parsons, who in the meantime had secured a patent for the Danelaghs, was allowed to hold the jproyevty undisturbed.§ To quote again from Dr. Leland : ‘‘ The counties Leitrim, Longford, and Westmeath, and those of the King and Queen, by their situation and circumstances required particular regulation ; the assumption was, that all those counties were inhabited by savages,” and, continues our Author, “ to reduce these savages to * History of Ireland, Book. iv. c. 7. t Ibid. See also Carew MSS. 1603 to 1624, pp. 321, et seq. The usual sham of a legal investigation was gone through in this as in so many other cases. The Lord Deputy (St. John) and Council writing to the English Privy Council inform them that “ The territories of the Morrogher and Kinselaghes in the County of Wexford were recovered by his majesty by verdict and judgment in the Exchequer, and the natives found inirudersy [The italics are the Author’s.] Calendar of State Papers (Ireland) 1615-1625, p. 303. t The district called the Ranelaghs corresponded pretty much with the Catholic parish of Bathdrum, before it was made into two parishes by Most Rev. Archbishop McCabe. § Taylor’s History of the Civil Wars in Ireland, Vol. I, pp, 243-6, and other authorities quoted in O’Connell’s Memoir of Ireland. 56 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH order and subjection, inquisitions were held to examine the King’s title to the whole, or any part of their lands.” There could be but one result from such inquisitions, which was that “James deemed himself entitled to make a distribution of three hundred and eighty five thousand acres in these counties.”* But this was only to open the way to the planting of the remaining three provinces after the manner of Ulster. Writing to Chichester in 1615, he says, he “ finds no remedy for the barbarous manners of the meer Irish, which keeps out the knowledge of literature and of manual trades, to the lamentable impoverishment and, indeed, destruction of that people,” but planting their lands as he did Ulster. “ And being given to understand of some titles he has, as well general as special, to allow part of the territories called the County of Longford, the County of Leitrim, and other Irish counties in Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, the unsettled state of which he (the King) never hears of without grief” he appoints Chichester with some chosen Commissioners “ to enquire into the King’s title,” the number and state of the inhabitants “ and the chiefries claimed by the chief pretended lords, and how these chiefries may be reduced and settled.”t The following passage from Plowden will throw some light on the way in which the work was done : “ In Connaught immense estates were declared forfeited to the Crown, because the recent grants made to the proprietors upon their surrenders of them to James had been neglected to be enrolled by the clerks IN Chancery, although the new grantees had paid above £3,000 into their hands for the enrolments, and these clerks alone could make them.”J Could anything be more iniquitous ? The proprietors had surrendered their lands to the Crown ; the Crown regranted these lands to the same proprietors, on condition of having those grants enrolled in the usual way in Chancery. The proprietors complied with this regulation, and paid the Chancery clerks for the enrolment. Those clerks, either through neglect or malice did not enrol the grants, and no other person had power or authority to enrol them. They were the servants of the Crown, but the Crown instead of hastening to rectify the wicked neglect of its servants, took advantage of it, in order to rob its Catholic subjects wholesale and in the most flagitious manner. * Leland, Book iv. c. 7. Quarto Ed. p. 461. Modern Surveys show there are 2,034,078 acres in the above counties. St. John wrote to the Lords of the Council that the whole of Longford consists of 50,000 acres. By modern Sur- veys it contains 269,409 acres. — Calendar of State Papers, p. 230, 1615-1625. t Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1615-1625, p. 35. X Plowden 's Historical Beview, Vol. I, p. 111. IN IRELAND. 57 CHAPTER VI. THE IRISH COURT OF WARDS. To the British Solomon, as his flatterers called J ames, we owe that artful and effective engine of religious persecution the Court of Wards ; and to James solely, for he called it into existence by his own authority, the consent of parliament having been neither obtained nor sought. This scheme like many other wicked schemes had a misleading title ; it was called a Court which was estab- lished for the better collection of the King’s revenue from the wards of the Crown. Its real object was to rob all Catholic heirs of their religion. By its rules all heirs of lands held under the Crown — and at James’s accession there was scarcely an acre in Ireland which was not so held — were obliged to sue out the livery of their lands in the Court of Wards; which Court was forbidden to grant such livery to any one who had not previously taken the oath of supremacy, as enacted in the first year of Elizabeth’s reign, and also an oath abjuring several articles of Catholic belief. Thus the Catholic heir had no alternative but to forswear his religion or forfeit his property. But there was another pro- vision which soon robbed some of the noblest families, native and Norman, of their faith, which was that, if the heir were a minor, it was reserved to the same Court to grant the wardship at dis- cretion, but to oblige tbe grantee, by a clause inserted in his patent “ to maintain and educate his ward in the English religion and habits in Trinity College, Dublin.”* Had these regulations been strictly carried out, as James undoubtedly intended they should be, every landowner in Ireland, whether successor to an * Note to “ O’ Flaherty’s West Connaught,” by Mr. Hardiman, p. 420. Among the many grievances complained of to James I, by the Lords of the English Pale in 1613, was that wardships were commonly granted to “ mean men and meer strangers to the heirs . . . whereby the wards are neither well nurtured, bred nor preferred, and their kindred forbidden from any disposition of them.” To this complaint Lord Deputy Chichester made the following answer: — “ His Majesty’s wards are granted unto such persons as the Lord Deputy doth think fit, who many times are the near friends of the ward, or else to persons of good worth and quality ; and in every grant there is a clause, that the wards shall be brought up in the College near Dublin [Trinity] in Eng- lish habits and religion ; which is the ill nurture of which these petitioners complain and the only cause of their grievance on this point .” — Desiderata Cur. Hibernica, Vol. 1, pp. 246-268. 58 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH English undertaker, or to a Lord of the Pale, or to an Irish Chieftain of Milesian blood, must within a very limited time have become a sworn protestant or a pauper. But the plan was often defeated by enfeoffments of the lands to secret trusts and uses, which withdrew the next heir from the jurisdiction of the Court, and enabled him to succeed to his inheritance without moles- tation on the ground of his religion.* The Court of Wards was established by a commission directed to Sir John Denham, Knight, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, and others, bearing date the 20th of July, in the 14th year of the king’s reign [1617].t Whilst heirs who had come of age could sometimes manage to evade the nefarious conditions with which they were required to comply before they would be allowed to inherit the properties left to them by their fathers, minors were utterly helpless and completely in the hands of the court. The practice was to give them up to Protestant guardians, who were paid certain sums out of the minors’ property for nurture and the destruction of their faith. In the eight years which intervened from the establishment of the court to the king’s death, I find in the patent rolls about fifty minors who were thus handed over to guardians, all of which minors were the heirs of important Catholic families — some of them such as Lord Burke, Wm. Oge Barry, M‘Dermot Poe, Barnwall, Kavanagb, Fitzgibbon, George Earl of Kildare, and James Butler, Lord Thurles, representiog the very foremost Houses in the Kingdom. I give here in full the first wardship granted by the new court, as it is an index to all the others. It runs as follows : — “ Grant to Sir Theobald Dillon, knt., of the wardship of Farrall O’Gara, grandson and next heir of Iriell O’Gara, late of Moy Gara, in Sligo Co., gent., deceased, for a fine of £S I7s. 9|d., and an annual rent of £18 8s. Od. retaining thereout £9 English, for his maintenance and education in the English religion and habits, and in Trinity * Lingard’s England, Vol. vii. p. 199. It is pleasant to be able to say that in very many instances protestant friends and neighbours behaved with great kindness to the Catholics during these dreadful times, and were often the means of protecting their property from being escheated. t Bacon seems to have been the suggester of the Court of Wards, as would appear by the following passage from his Advice to Sir George ViUiers concern- ing Ireland ; “ Now in my opinion time will open and facilitate things for reformation of religion there (in Ireland), and not shut up or lock out the same. For, first, the plantations going on^ and being principally of Protestants, cannot but unite the other party in time. And His Majesty’s care in placing good Bishops and good Divines, in amplyfying the college there, and looking to the education of Wards and such like ; as they are the most natural means, so are they like to be the most effectual and happy, for the weeding out of Popery without using the temporal sword.”— Cabala, p. .36. IN IRELAND. 59 College, Dublin, from the 12th to the ISth year of his age.’’* * * § It must not be supposed, however, that the establishment of the court of wards by James I. was the first attempt on the faith of the upper classes of the Irish. Elizabeth’s settled plan was, under one excuse or another, to have the heirs of important Irish families brought to London to be educated in “ civility ” and Protestantism ; and she kept Meyler Magrath there, the ex-friar and Protestant Bishop, because he could speak to them in their own tongue. James continued the same course up to the re- establishment of the Court of Wards, two years before which I find the following entry in the calendar of State Papers : — “ List of the noblemen’s sons to be brought into England for their education : — The Lord Barry’s grandchild, 13 years old ; the Lord Yiscount Gormanston’s eldest son of 10 years old, the Lord Coursie’s two sons, the Lord of Delvin’s son and heir, 13 years old ; the Lord of Trambleston’s son and heir, 18 years old ; the Lord of Dunboyne’s grandchild, 13 years old ; the Lord of Cahyr’s nephew, which is son unto his brother, Thomas Butler ; the Lord Power himself, 15 years old ; the Lord of Birmingham’s grandchild, 14 years old; to be brought up at the free school in Dublin. ”f And further on in the calendar I find this entry in a list of concordatums : — “12 February, 1617, to Wm. Kinge, gent., for his travel charges and carriage into England, with Brian O’Borcke, His Majesty’s ward, whose delivery there the Lords of the Privy Council have certified, wishing the said William Einge to be recompensed for the trust.”J In a note by Mr. Lemon this O’Eourke is pronounced “ a troublesome fellow,” for although he was taken to England “ to be brought up in religion, and to have that education as is meet for a gentleman of his fashion and means,” he seems to have been more inclined to fight than to learn, for on a certain St. Patrick’s day “he fell into a brabble wherein some were hurt, and O’Bourke thereupon committed to the gate house” (a prison) ; he was afterwards indicted in the King’s Bench and fined £300 in ‘‘charges and damages about a broken pate.”§ In the commission granted 6th Septem- ber, 1622, to Sir William Parsons, to be master of the court of wards there are articles and instructions annexed from which we learn that — “ No grant of any wardship was to be made to any recusant. That the wards were to be brought up in learn- * 12 Jan. ISth, [year of the king’s reign] Patent Rolls, James I. p. 311, t Calend. of State Papers (Ireland), 1615- 1625, p. 83. i Calendar, p. 195. § Ibid p. 265. '60 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH ing in the college near Dublin (Trinity), and that no ward was to be allowed to marry a recusant* George tbe 16 tb Earl of Kildare (commonly ' called tbe fairy Earl) was tbe first Leinster Geraldine wbo was regularly brought up a Protestant ; but as two of bis predecessors are sometimes spoken of as Protestants,! will dispose of them before proceeding with tbe case of tbe fairy Earl. In tbe second edition of tbe Earls of Kildare ” it is stated that tbe eleventh Earl “ conformed to the Protestant religion in tbe beginning of tbe reign of Queen Elizabetb,”t but this state- ment is omitted in the subsequent and enlarged edition of 1862 . The omission, however, would not warrant us in regarding it as incorrect, for, most certainly, it would never have been made unless the noble author found it among tbe family documents. Tbe change in tbe Earl’s religion must have been quietly managed, and probably consisted in bis attendance at Protestant service. Be this as it may, there are incidents in his career dur- ing Elizabeth’s reign which lead to the supposition that, in gov- ernment circles at least, be was regarded as a Protestant. For instance in tbe sixth year of her reign, be, together with tbe Archbishop of Armagh and several other prelates and dis- tinguished laymen, was appointed on a commission to “ enquire into any heretical opinions, seditious books, conspiracies, false rumours, tales, slanderous words or sayings, published or invented by any person or persons against Her Majesty or tbe laws or statutes of tbe realm ; and to enquire, order, correct, and reform all such persons as should obstinately absent themselves from church and Divine service, as by law established ; to bear and determine all causes and complaints of those wbo, in respect of religion or lawful matrimony, have been injuriously deprived, defrauded or despoiled of their lands, goods, possessions, or livings ; to ensure their restoration and tbe removal of tbe usurpers with all convenient speed ; and as there are still in tbe realm divers perverse and obstinate persons, wbo refuse to acknowledge Her Majesty’s prerogative and to observe tbe cere- monies and rites in Divine Service, established by law. Her Majesty directs tbe Commissioners to cause all Archbishops, Bishops, and other ecclesiastical officers or ministers to subscribe tbe oath contained in tbe statute, ‘ for restoring to the crown tbe antient jurisdiction over the state, ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolition of all foreign power repugnant to tbe same,’ and * Calendar 1619-1625, p. 391. t The Earls of Kildare and their Ancestors, by the Marquis of Kildare, p. 214. 2nd. Ed. 1858. IN IRELAND. 61 if any of the clergy peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take the oath, their refusal is to be certified into Chancery without delay.”* It is highly improbable that the Queen would have appointed the eleventh Earl upon such a commission as the above, unless she regarded him as a Protestant. 2. In the Queen’s letters on Irish affairs she seemed glad of an opportunity to praise “ her cousin Kildare,” and certainly favoured him even when there was strong evidence brought against him. In his intercourse with English officials the Earl some- times spoke of the Catholic religion with suspicious contempt. In the indictment drawn up against him by the Archbishop of Dublin and the Council, he is represented as saying in an interview with the Archbishop ; — “ I knowe not what to doe, nor whom to truste. They are all suche arrant Papistes, and in their case I dare not truste my sonne-in-lawe here the Baron of Delvyn, he is so infected with the papistre.”t Again : In the Earl’s examination taken in the tower of London, 18fch June, 1582, he says, “he knowethe not Rochforth the priest, neyther hathe he to his Exam^®- knowledge bene at any time in his company, but he saith he hathe hard of such a one, a notable papyst and a great rebell, to have been in company of the Vycount” [Baltinglas]. 3. His Will, which is given in the Second Edition of the “ Earl’s of Kildare,” throws no light on his religious belief, and seems to be worded with the design of leaving it doubtful. “ I bequethe,” he says, “ my sowle to Almighty God, my bowels to be buried heere in England, and my bodie to be conveide into Ireland, and there buried in St. Bryde’s church in Kildare, in such due order as appertaynethe to one of my vocation^ St. Brigit’s of Kildare was, at the time of his death in the hands of the pro- testants ; and the above italicised passage (italicised by me, not by the Earl) seems to empower the then possessors of “ Kildare’s Holy Shrine” to do what they pleased relative to his obsequies ; while at the same time it might well have seemed to free his living relations from all responsibility in the matter. There are no symptoms of Catholicity in the Earl’s Will — no prayers for his soul — no Masses; neither is there any profession of protestant belief. I cannot think that the Earl passed or wished to pass as a pro- testant in Ireland, at least amongst the Irish. For although the * Patent and Close Rolls, Chancery, Ireland j 6th of Elizabeth, pp. 489-90. t “ Earls of Kildare.” Ed. 1862, p. 166. 62 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH cliarges brought against him bj his enemies — the Allens and others — were probably much exaggerated, they must have had some foundation in fact; otherwise, his patron, Queen Elizabeth, would never have consented to the arrest of himself, and his two sons, nor to the long imprisonment to which they were subjected. To be sure, after searching examinations, both of the Earl himself and of the witnesses against him, he was restored to liberty, because, as Lord Burleigh said, “ there falleth out no one poynt sufficiently proved by two witnesses concurring in time, place and matter, though otherwise the presumptions and conjectures were verie vehement against the said Erie.”* But the Earl had something still better than Burleigh’s decision to rely upon ; he had the Queen’s favour, and only he had, Burleigh would have never gone into such special pleading to free him. If they wanted to hang or behead him, as they had done with his ancestors, Burleigh was just the man to maintain the evidence abundant for the purpose. The mass of evidence against him, the Earl met by denying its truth, or, as Burleigh put it — in his own examinations he confesseth nothing in effect, but stands rather upon flatt denial.”*|* Of course the Earl gave the charge brought against him a flat denial; he would have played the fool had he not done so ; and the truth is, the evidence was set aside merely on the strength of that denial. Still, the conduct of his own followers, as well as that of the Catholics, chiefs and people, tend to prove that he was not regarded by them as a genuine protestant. If he were they would, in all likelihood, have received him in a manner far different from what they did. His own people, instead of raising a shout of joy on his return amongst them, would have treated him as the young Earl of Desmond was treated by his followers, when they saw him go to the protestant church with the Lord Deputy on the Sunday after his arrival in Kilmallock. It is beyond doubt that the Lady Mabel, his wife, harboured priests, and whilst from politic motives the Earl would keep such a distance with them as not to have any formal knowledge of their presence in his house, which might be used as evidence against him, he could not be wholly ignorant of the circum- stance. After Yiscount Baltinglass had joined the O’Moores and O’Connors in their rebellion against Elizabeth, he sent a letter from O’Maile to the Earl of Kildare in which the following ^ “ The Earls of Kildare,” Ed. 1862, p. 224. Ib. 253. + Ibid. p. 167. IN IRELAND. 63 passage occurs “ I truste, therefore, the day shall never come that strangers shall saye when Christes banner was in the field, on the one syde, and the banner of heresie on the other syde, that the Earl of Kildare’s forces weare openly seene to stand under the hereticall banner.”"^ Baltinglass would scarcely have written in such terms to a man whom he believed had given up the Catholic religion. In any case it is difficult to credit the Earl with a change of internal conviction. He was well over thirty years of age when Elizabeth ascended the throne, and not only was he a Catholic in Edward’s and Mary’s time, but he had been during all his previous life a representative, an impersonation of Irish Catholicity. He cannot be regarded in any other light than that of a political protestant ; for the idea of theological investigation on his part, and consequent change of religion, can scarcely be entertained for a moment. He was the Catholic fugitive Geraldine everywhere ; he was educated and grounded (need I say it ?) in Catholic doctrine and Catholic sentiments at Home by his great kinsman, Cardinal Pole. What a pity that he had not the courage to close with dignified consistency a career so historical, so chequered, so full of incident, so rich in romantic interest? The times no doubt were perilous, and although Edward and Mary had restored to him most of his ancestral estates, Elizabeth might have taken them back again, and taken his head along with them. The bloodstains of his five slaughtered uncles (three of whom were certainly murdered, for they were perfectly innocent) as well as those of his brother, Silken Thomas, mayhap, had not quite faded from his memory, although long obliterated from Tyburn ; and it was natural that their unhappy fates should be a warning to him to bear himself with circumspection. He listened to that warning, and as it would appear, determined to follow it at any sacrifice. Leaving out of the question eternal considerations, the sacrifice he made seems great even from a human point of view. He, instead of the sixteenth Earl, should be regarded as the fairy Earl. While yet a child, and the last representative of his great house, a savage King, brutal and bloodthirsty, determined on the annihilation of his race ; but he was spirited away from Ireland in spite of the ceaseless watchfulness of English detectives, (who would be promoted and highly rewarded for his capture). Through the ever watchful faithfulness of Father Leverous, he escaped them all, and succeeded in crossing the seas; but the * “Earls of Kildare,” p. 198, Ed. 1862. 64 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH moment Henry discovered his whereabouts, he demanded him at every Court as a rebel subject, with the keen persistent ferocity of a hungry tiger pursuing his prey* There are the most wonderful myths about him in parts of the continent, especially Belgium. He was a whole year protected under the roof of the Archbishop of Liege. Watched everywhere, pur- sued everywhere, he at length took refuge at Borne, within the protecting shadow of the Rock of Peter, where he was educated and supported according to his rank by Cardinal Pole and Cosmo, Duke of Florence (who made him master of his horse), until it was deemed safe for him to return to England. He appeared at the Court of Edward, where he wooed and won the daughter of Sir Anthony Brown, a lady endowed with rare virtues, and well known in our Annals, as “ the Lady Mabel Kildare.” Such a career ! such a maimed and spoilt and broken career indeed ! for take away his Catholicity, and what remains of the eleventh Earl of Kildare ? History — Irish history — can never cease to regard him with interest. It may treat him as the representative of a great name and a great cause, as a courtier, a warrior, a hero of Romance ; but one thing it surely can never accept him for, and that is a bona fide protestant. Henry and William, the two sons of the eleventh Earl, were successively the twelfth and thirteenth Earls of Kildare. William the thirteenth Earl was drowned on his way from England, having, with some “gallant gentlemen,” accompanied Essex on his journey to Ireland, after his appointment as Lord Deputy. Kildare and his friends were in a small light barque, built for speed, which was cast away in a storm during the passage. He died unmarried, and his cousin Gerald, nephew of the eleventh Earl, became fourteenth Earl of Kildare. His mother, Mabel Leigh, was an English Lady, and he seems to have been brought up entirely in England, as his father, Edward Fitzgerald, held there the post of Lieutenant of the gentlemen pensioners. There is good reason to believe that, for a part of his life at least, he pro- fessed the Protestant religion. O’Sullivan makes no doubt about it, and treats him accordingly. “ He might,” says that writer, “ have been renowned amongst the Irish, on account of his illus- trious race, by the deeds of his ancestors and his own, only that he sullied everything by degenerating from the Catholic faith.” He adds, as some excuse, that from his infancy he was brought * See a full account of his early adventures and escapes in the “ The Castle of Leixlip, by a Kildare Archaeologist.” IN IRELAND. 65 up by the English, and being imbued with their errors, never imbibed the nectar of the true religion.”* * * § Wishing to go to England on his private affairs in 1600, he asked and obtained a letter of introduction to Cecil from Adam Loftus, Chancellor, and Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, in which he is highly commended for his “ valour, zeal, and faithfulness in the Queen’s service,” qualities Adam Loftus would have hardly believed to exist in a papist. On the 16th March, 1601, the Earl himself wrote to Cecil, bespeaking his influence with the Queen on his behalf. In that letter he says : — “ My chiefest comfort is the remembrance of her Majesty’s most gracious promise to me, which assured me, at my departure, that she would do for me. I believe her words to be divine oracles, and therefore do only repose my greatest felicity in this world on her princely promise.”t On the 15th May he again wrote to Cecil, telling him that since his return to Ireland, he attended the Lord Deputy in all his journeys in the “ Kanelayhes, Byrnes’ Country, Westmeath, the borders of Farkall and Ophaly,” until it pleased his Lordship to give him some companies of foot and horse “ for attending the service of Ophaly and prosecuting the rebells thereabouts.” He further declares that it is his purpose ever- more to adventure his life in her Majesty’s service.’’^ In the same letter he directs Cecil’s attention to the state of the army in Ireland. He says, “ the most part of the Queen’s troops are Irish,” and although he thinks them well fitted for the service, he insinuates that they are not to be trusted, and wishes the army reinforced from England. He adds : — “ I speak this like an Englishman, and would be glad to be so accounted.” In June 1601, Sir George Cary, the Treasurer, wrote to Cecil that the Earl broke open “ certain doores ” in the Lady Mabel’s house at Maynooth, “ and took away all the evidences in the closet. ”§ Writing to defend his action in this matter, the Earl again pa- rades his English leanings and loyal devotion to her Majesty. He says : — “ I am humbly to beseech their Lordships for as much as birth and education hath been in England, and that ever since I was able to bear arms, I served her Majesty, both there, about her person, and here.”|| In these passages the Earl declares as nearly as may be that he is a Protestant. He does not use that word, which possibly * Catholic History, Ed. 1850. p. 290. t “ Earls of Kildare,” under the head of “ Gerald 14th Earl.” t Ibid. § Ibid, p. 340. This was the^Lady Mabel Browne, the widow of the Eleventh Earl. 11 Ibid, 311. E 06 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH was unknown to him, as a term descriptive of religious belief, and one which was never used to designate the Church of Eng- land except in a loose and popular way ; but when he puts pro- minently forward that he is of English birth, and that he wishes himself to be regarded as an Englishman, he goes all but the whole length of declaring himself a member of the Church to which the Queen belonged — the only Church which was tolerated in England, and which was and is, therefore, designated the Church of England. Moreover, at that time Englishman and Protestant were synonymous terms, as they still are in parts of Ireland. O’Daly is quoted by the noble author of “ the Earls of Kildare” for the fact that the Earl was a Protestant. O’Sullivan, too, whose Catholic History was first published in 1621, nine years after the Earl’s death, speaks of him as a Protestant, as we have seen above. James the 1st made numerous and extensive grants of property to the Earl in twenty-one different counties of Ire- land, and in the City of Dublin. He even bestowed Abbey lands upon him, and gave him the right of presentation to several ecclesiastical livings — facts which go to show that the King believed him to be a Protestant.^ O’Sullivan assumes that the fourteenth Earl was brought up as a protestant from his infancy, but this is only an assumption. Anyhow, the following facts go to show that he was not devoid of Catholic tendencies. When he was about to be married to his second cousin, Elizabeth, daughter of Lord Delvin, the relation- ship being within the forbidden degrees, a dispensation was sought and obtained from Borne to permit the marriage. Only Catholics would have sought such a dispensation. It may be said, no doubt, that it was sought by the Hugents, but had they regarded him as a real protestant, it is scarcely credible that that most Catholic house would have then accepted him as a husband for a member of their family. Again, there is a strong con- tradiction given to the protestantism of this Earl by his rushing from Dublin to Maynooth, and sending for a priest when he felt the hand of death upon him. Furthermore, although O’Sullivan says his address to the Viceroy (given later on) did not emanate from a Catholic mind, it was far more the speech of a Catholic than of a Protestant. * The Earl (according to Lodge) was appointed Governor of Offaley on the 31st August, 1600, but, according to the Earl himself, not till the 26th March, 1601. Earls of Kildare, p. 338. Ed. 1862. For this office he had an allowance of 10s. a day, and “the fee of a mare during pleasure,” in lieu of which he petitioned the King “ that he might have a grant to him and his heirs in fee farm of so many crown lands as amounted to £100 a year, or thereabouts.” His petition was complied with, and hence the above grants. See Lodge's Peerage, Vol. 1., p. 100. IN IRELAND. G7 In the year 1611, Andrew Knox, a Scotchman, and Bishop of Orkney, was translated by the King to the see of Kaphoe. “ He came,” says O’Daly, “ entrusted with a special commission and ample powers to tear up Catholicity by the roots.”"^ Cox, in his cunning way, says on this point, “ It seems, the King and Council of England resolved to proceed effectually to the Reformation of Ireland, by making laws, and by putting those that were made in execution, and by putting that kingdom under a regular and methodical government ”f Persecution at once became more active. Bishop Deveney and several priests were hunted down and executed. This persecution having provoked the Eirl of Kildare, he went to the Lord Deputy and denounced it, telling him it was a principle implanted in the heart of man by nature and by nature’s God, to feel sorrow at seeing the innocent overwhelmed with cruel injuries by the hands of savage men. “For myself,” he said, “ I feel bound in conscience to lay open to you the burthens and calamities inflicted upon this king- dom by the soldiers who have been appointed to search for and seize popish priests. The more, because I am well aware of the devotedness and perfect justice with which you have administered your government here, from which I derive the hope that the aggressions of wicked men shall be restrained ; that the oppressed shall receive succour, and the good of the whole country be pro- vided for by you.” “ Now, those soldiers and other servants of the crown, accom- panied by bands of robbers and low immoral wretches, who associate with them on familiar terms, under the pretence of searching for priests, traverse the rural districts — the cities — the towns — invade private houses, and enter the most private apartments in those houses, robbing and destroying; and by false accusations, and with the aid of false documents, arrest and manacle innocent people and condemn them to death; publicly sell their property, while they seize for themselves their villas, their delightful gardens, their precious furniture : to sum up their wickedness, in a word, they defile everything sacred and profane. Influenced, as they are, by incredible fury, they are utterly regardless as to whether those whom they treat in this barbarous manner have committed crime or not. The fact is, that even if all the Irish papists were priests, it would be neither honourable nor becoming to attack them with such savage rage, and that, too, in spite of the morality taught by law, by reason, by the example of our ancestors, and the customs of all other nations. * History of the Geraldines, Translation, p. 177. t Cox: Vol.2.,p. 16. 68 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Wherefore, I most earnestly entreat you to apply some remedy to this plague, and to so many and such crying evils. To do so concerns the public good, which claims your first attention ; it concerns you — your honour and your good name — you, to whom the government of this nation is confided ; it concerns our re- ligion ; it concerns me, who, together with a very few other Irish, venerate the royal creed ; it concerns all who profess the same, especially the king, the head, chief and defender of this religion, and the sovereign ruler of all, lest we should be regarded as enemies of the state, and be held as, and actually be, brutal, irreligious, impious, and lawless.”"^ O’Daly gives an epitome of the above speech in his Relatio Geraldinorum, which agrees substantially with O’Sullivan’s fuller report. Sir Arthur Chichester was deeply mortified by the bold free- dom with which Kildare spoke, because he felt that his words cast a censure upon himself ; but he concealed his anger, and thanked Kildare for his advice, while at the same time he planned his destruction. He offered him a cup of wine in token of friend- ship, which he took care to have drugged with poison beforehand. The Earl being thirsty quaffed the wine freely, but scarcely had he done so, when he felt ill, and exclaimed, “ I fear this wine has taken my life,” and at once, mounting his horse, rode to Maynooth, and called for a Catholic priest, with whose aid he prepared himself for death, which occurred before morning.f On this subject O’Daly writes : “ The Viceroy commended his [the Earl’s] zeal and piety, and asked to his palace as a guest a ' man so full of ardour. The Earl had only drunk the first cup of wine when he felt that he was poisoned. Furious he left the hall in tumult, and hastening to his house at Maynooth, called a Catholic priest, confessed his sins with tears, took the holy Eucharist, and a little before day expired.’’^ “The Earl died on the 11th February, 1612, and on the 12th, the Lord Deputy, Sir Arthur Chichester, wrote to the Earl of Salisbury from Dublin Castle : ‘I doubt not but your Lordship hath heretofore heard of the Earle of Kildare’s match with a * Translated from O’Sullivan. Although O’Sullivan had not the means of obtaining the precise words which the Earl addressed to the Lord Deputy, no doubt the general purport of them had got abroad. It is worthy of note that the Earl speaks as a protestant in the above discourse, yet, on the night of the day on which he uttered it, he sent for a Catholic priest to prepare him for death. This speech lets much light in upon the priest-hunters of the period. t See O’Sullivan’s Catholic Hist. pp. 291 — 2 Ed. 1850. j Relatio Geraldinorum, p. 313, quoted in the “ Earls of Kildare,” p. 359. Ed. 1862. IN IRELAND. 69 daughter of the late Delvyn’s, sister to the Baron that now is ; and it may be that you have likewise heard that she did lately bare him a sonne. That which I am to tell your Lordship is of the most suddayne death of the Earle. He was here with me yester- day, untyll afternoone, and then he rode to his house to May- nooth, and having supped he sone after felt a payne in his stomach, and so went to his chamber, and sone after fell speech- lesse and so died.’”"^ Leaving out the poisoning and the priest, Chichester's account of the Earl’s death differs only in one important point from that of O’Sullivan and O’Daly. That point is as to where the Earl supped. O’Daly seems to take it for granted that he supped with the Viceroy, for he says : “ A.t the end of his statement, the Viceroy commended his zeal and piety, and ashed to his palace as a guest a man so full of ardour ;”t Chichester, on the other hand, takes evident and over-suspicious care to make the Earl sup at Maynooth instead of with himself, and clearly implies that it was after supping at Maynooth he first felt his illness.J But it was the bringing up of the Earl’s heir in the protestant religion which seems to have concerned Chichester, rather than the Earl’s death. For after misrepresenting it, he im- mediately says: — “He hath left behinde him a poore and woe- full house, his chylde in his cradle, and not manie friends of integritie and judgment to manadge his estate, or to have care of his education, in which consists the welfare and hopes of his house. Those neerest unto him here of the religion are the Earle of Thomonde and Sir Francis Aungiere, now Master of the Rolls. The Earle is married to a daughter of the house of Kildare, and the Master of the Rolls was married to a sister of the late Earle’s. If the Kinge’s Ma^^®-» out of his princely care of auncient noble famelyes, wyl be pleased to committ the guardian- shipe of the younge Lord on anie here, I recommend them to your Lordship’s remembrance as well for their wourthe as allyance. They both have requested me to have care of the chylde and the welfare of his house, and that I would move your Lordship that the benefitt of the Wardshippe might be geven to himselfe, but therein I presume not ; neither do I think it fitt that the mother be permitted to have a hand in his educa- tion, her religion considered. ”§ * Earls of Kildare, p. 358. t Supra. t The italics in the above passages are tbe Author’s, not Chichester’s. § The italics are the Author’s. 70 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH This was Gerald, the 15th Earl, who was only seven weeks old at his father’s death. Contrary to Chichester’s suggestions, the wardship of the child was given to the Duke of Lenox, but he died in the ninth year of his age, whereupon his first cousin, George, the son of his uncle Thomas and Frances Randolph, eldest daughter of the Postmaster-General of Eugland, became sixteenth Earl of Kildare. He succeeded to the title and estates whilst yet a child, and, at the age of eight years and nine months, was given as a ward to the Duke of Lenox, “ who,” says Lodge, “took care to have him educated in the Communion of the Church of England, in which the illustrious family have ever since continued.”* So that Lodge, justly as it seems to me, ignores the protestantism of the eleventh and fourteenth Earls. The 16th Earl of Kildare is popularly called the fairy Earl, but the belief in a fairy Earl of Kildare is far older than the 16th Earl’s time, and this unknown one should be called the “enchanted,” not the “fairy” Earl. This enchanted Earl, while reviewing his army on the Curragh of Kildare, all of a sudden disappeared, together with them, and has not since been found. But Geroid Jarla (Earl Gerald or Garret) and his army live ! They are, with their arms in their hands, standing in battle array in some cave near the Curragh, or under the Rath of Mullaghmast, and when the time is come, some person will accidentally tread on a secret spring, which at once frees the chieftain and his army from the enchantment; they march forth armed cap-a-piedas they entered, and nothing can with- stand them. Such is the myth, which proves one thing at least, the wonderful faith which the Irish people had in the family of the Geraldines. The 16th, like the 15th Earl, was given as a ward to the Duke of Lenox, on whose death the first Earl of Cork (called, like many other successful villains, “great”) actually bought the wardship from the duchess for £5000 ! A high figure, but the famous adventurer knew what he was about. He thus got the management of the whole Kildare property, and in due time had his daughter married to this 16th Earl. The property was greatly reduced by the Earl of Coik, and still further sunk by the 16th Earl of Kildare, his son-in-law, who was an ex- travagant spendthrift, and had not even one of the sterling qualities of a Geraldine in him.f * Lodge’s Peerage of Irelacd, by Arcbdall, Vol. 1., p. 101. t The above facts I have on the most undoubted authority, w hich, however, I do not feel at liberiy to quote. The name Fairy Farl applied to this Earl George, appears to be a joke, founded on a portrait of him at Carte n, in which he looks more like a fairy than a man. IN IRELAND. 71 Thus was the great family of Kildare lost to the Catholic Church in Ireland ; not, however, lost to Ireland itself, for the blood of the Fitzgeralds has more than once since the days of the Fairy Earl manifested itself flowing in the old channel, and men of Irish race and Irish feeling still love to apply the time- honoured eulogy of Hihernis Hiherniores to the House of Geraldine.* Although the Fitzgeralds were a greater loss to the Irish Catholics than any other leading Norman family could have been, there was one Butler whose influence on their affairs was far greater than that of any individual Geraldine, I mean that one who has come down to us as the great Duke of Ormonde. George, the sixteenth Earl of Kildare, was a child when he became a King’s ward, and was given to a protestant guardian. It could not, therefore, be said that he had fallen away from the religion of his ancestors ; but I fear the same cannot be said of Viscount Thurles, afterwards Duke of Ormonde. We learn from his historian. Carte, that the Duke always said he was born in London in the year 1610, but Archdall proves from an Inquisi- tion taken at Clonmel in April, 1622, before the King’s Com- missioners and twelve gentlemen, residents of the Co. Tipperary, that his birth took place in IGOT.f I give these dates because they have an important bearing on his change of religion. His father and mother, his sisters and all who were nearest and dearest to him, were Catholics, and he was brought up as a Catholic until he was made a Ward of King James’s Court of Wards, which was done in open violation of law, for he inherited no property whatever which entitled the King to make him his Ward. The notorious and unscrupulous Parsons, then head of that Court, by some unexplained trick, had the young Lord Thurles made a Ward of it, a feat of which the said Parsons was quite proud, and of which he often afterwards boasted. It may have been a clumsy trick or no trick at all ; the King was for it, and that was enough. We find in the Patent Rolls of James the First’s reign, that ‘‘James Butler, Viscount Thurles,” was delivered as a ward to Richard, Earl of Desmond, by a King’s letter which bears date the 26th of May, in the 21st year of the King’s * Calendar of State Papers (Ireland), 1615-1625, p. 209. t The words of the Inquisition are : — “ Predictus Thomas vicecomes Thurles, 15th die Decembris, anno dom. 1619, Obiit ; et quidem Jacobus Butler, com- munitur vocatus dominus vicecomes Thurles, fuit filius et hseres praefati Thomse Butler, et quod prsefatus Jacobus Butler, tempore mortis, praedicti Thomse fuit setatis duodecim annorum et non amplius.” Quoted hy Archdall. 72 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH reign, that is the year 1628* If we follow the Inquisition cited above and hold that Lord Thurles was born in 1607, he was at least sixteen years of age when he was entrusted to a Protestant guardian ; if we believe him to have been born in 1610, he was only in his thirteenth year at the time. He was educated as a Catholic up to that period ; and if he were sixteen years of age his religious belief must have been fully formed, but even if he were only in his thirteenth year at the date of the king’s letter, one cannot help thinking that James Viscount Thurles was fairly able to judge for himself in matters of religion. At the present time the most ignorant boy who comes before a court of law is allowed the right of choosing his religion by the judges, if he have completed his fourteenth year ; hence, whichever of the above dates we elect to follow for the birth of Lord Thurles, we may justly conclude that he was not entrapped into becoming a Protestant, but that he became one when he was able to judge for himself on matters of religious belief. It might be supposed that his residence at Lambeth with Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, (into whose hands he seems to have been imme- diately given) would have great influence upon his religious views ; but all we are told about the Archbishop is that he sadly neglected Lord Thurles’s education ; so that his residence at Lambeth Palace was not likely to make him become enamoured of Protestantism. However the year of the Duke’s birth given by the King’s Commissioners in the Inquisition seems by far the more pro- bable one, although Carte does not accept it ; but be it remem- bered that he confesses he never saw it. He therefore rejects it, not on its merits, hut because the Duke gave him a different date, a circumstance by no means sufficient for the setting aside of * This was Sir Richard Preston, one of the grooms of the bedchamber to James, a facile courtier, and a great favourite with his master, who had the audacity to degrade a great name by creating him Earl of Desmond. He also gave him in marriage, Elizabeth, only daughter of Thomas, tenth Earl of Ormonde, in right of whom Preston put forward a claim to the Ormonde estates, which had been settled so as to descend to the holder of that title and other heirs male of the family ; and independently of which, Earl Thomas had made abundant provision for his daughter. Lady Preston. A lawsuit was the con- sequence, at every step of which the King interfered in behalf of his favourite ; but the case was so plain that the judges, even in that corrupt time, had to decide against him. However, the king’s wishes were not to be set aside by judges, so he reversed, by a mere act of his arbitrary will, their judgment, and decided in favour of Preston ! The Earl of Ormonde, Lord Thurles’s grand- father, attempted to resist this barefaced robbery, and for doing so, James seized his whole estate and imprisoned himself in the Fleet, where he was confined during eight years, often in want of the common necessaries of life ! Nor did the King ever relent. The matter was finally settled by the marriage of Lord Thurles, the heir of Ormonde, with the daughter and heir of Preston. IN IRELAND. 73 such a formal and important document. Indeed, Carte saw no document at all with reference to the Duke’s age ; he relied solely on the Duke’s casual word in the matter, against which two things may be reasonably urged : (1) that men are apt to make themselves younger than they really are ; and (2), that the Duke of Ormonde might have had a further reason for so doing, namely the wish not to have it known that he renounced Catholicity when he was a young man of sixteen or seventeen years of age.* King James died in March, 1625, in the fifty-ninth year of his age. The robberies he caused and permitted to be perpetrated against his Irish Catholic subjects were: — Confiscations in Ulster, Between the rivers Arklow and Slaney, In Connaught and Clare, The Ranelagh’s &c., of which the O’Byrnes were despoiled in Wicklow, say Total, Thus did James, the recreant son of the martyred Catholic Mary Stuart, cause to be forfeited to the Crown, between four and five millions of acres, simply and solely because they were the property of Irish Catholics ; and besides this, he made many and most galling additions to the already Draconic Penal Laws. * Carte says, (p, 3, vol. 1.) that he sought in vain for the Inquisition in the Evidence Room m the Castle of Kilkenny, and “ in the Rolls of Chancery at Dublin.” There is a marginal note very quaintly, but very neatly written opposite this passage in the author s copy of Carte’s Ormonde, to this effect : ‘ ‘ The Inquisition now remains on record in the Rolls Office, and fixes his birth in ye year of 1607.” This note ought to settle the controversy. 3.798.000 statute acres. 66,000 „ „ 385,000 „ „ 30,000 „ „ 4.279.000 „ 74 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH CHAPTER YU. Charles, the third and only surviving son of J ames the 1st, suc- ceeded to his father. He was generally believed to be favourable to the Church of Rome, and this belief filled the Protestants with alarm, and inspired the Catholics with confidence. Hence, in the beginning of his reign, although the penal laws enacted in previous reigns remained in force, the Irish Catholics carried on their religious services with a certain amount of publicity and solemnity, thereby showing a reliance on the new monarch, for which there was no real ground, whilst it provoked the active hostility of their enemies.^ On his accession, Charles, found himself involved in a war with Spain, which, from his having failed to obtain the hand of the Infanta, was by no means distasteful to him, and was in fact promoted and encouraged by him and his favourite, Buckingham. During its progress he feared the Spaniards would make a descent upon the coast of Ireland, and he therefore re- solved to increase his army in that country to 5,000 foot and 600 horse. He had no difficulty in getting the men, but the funds to support them were wanting, as the English parliament would allow him little or no assistance but upon hard and dis- honourable terms.* The Lord Deputy of Ireland, Lord Falk- land, in this difficulty, called together the chief landowners, who readily promised to raise for the King a large sum of money in return for certain concessions ; and a deputation from them pro- ceeded to London to arrange with the English Privy Council the nature and extent of those concessions. A report was at once spread abroad that they were chiefiy if not entirely intended to secure toleration to the Catholic Recusants, who formed two- thirds of the meeting which had been convened by the Lord Deputy. The founder of low-churchism in its fiercest aspect in Ireland, James Usher, was protestant primate. He summoned the pro- testant bishops to his house, that they might take united action against any concession being granted to the Catholics. They drew up and signed a document which they called “The judg- ment of divers of the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland con- * Sir E. Walker’s Historical Discourses, fol. 337. IN IRELAND. 75 cerning toleration of Religion.” This judgment was that the religion of Papists is superstitious and idolatrous ; its doctrines erroneous and heretical, and their Church in regard to both apostatical. To give them toleration would, therefore, be a grievous sin in two respects: — 1. It would make us accessary to their superstitions, idolatries, and heresies, and to all the abomina- tions of popery, and also to the perdition of the people who perish in the deluge of the Catholic Apostacy. 2. To grant them toleration in respect of any money to be given by them is to set religion to sale, and with it the souls of the people whom Christ Our Saviour redeemed with his most precious blood.” It is very remarkable and very absurd to find those champions of the divine right of private judgment speaking with the dog- matic authority of a general Council, whose decrees they would have despised and denounced with indignant contempt.* But the King wanted an army, and as even kings cannot raise armies, without money, Charles gladly accepted the offer of £120,000 tendered by the delegates ; a larger sum than had been ever given to any of his predecessors. It was to be paid within three years, in three instalments of £40,000 each. In return for this, he, under his own hand, granted the delegates fifty-one “ Graces,” as these concessions were called. It seems to be assumed by protestant writers that all or almost all the “Graces” were concessions to the Irish Catholics; but this was by no means the case, for by far the greater number of them applied to the whole population, Protestant as well as Catholic. The first four had reference to the army, and were meant to relieve the people, to some extent at least, from the dreadful tyranny of coin and livery ; the next eight regulated wine and beer licences, and the salaries of market clerks, settled something about tanning leather, and abolished short ploughs. It is only when we reach the fifteenth “grace” we find the first concession to the Catholics, by which they were allowed to sue out livery for their lands by taking a civil oath, which Catholics * According to Bishop Mant’s “ History of the Church of Ireland,” there were twenty-one Protestant bishops holding Irish Sees at the time this judg- ment was delivered ; but it is signed by twelve only, namely : — 1. James Usher, Armagh. 2. Malcolm Hamilton, Cashel. 3. Anthony Martin, Meath. 4. Thomas Ram, Ferns and Lough- lin. 5. Robert Echlin, Down and Con- Ardagh. 10. T. Buck worth, Dromore. 11, Michael Boyle, Waterford and Achonry. 9. Thomas Moygue, Kilmore and 8. A. Hamilton, Killala, and nor. 6. George Downham, Derry. 7. Richard Boyle, Cork, Cloyne, and Ross. Lismore. 12. Francis Gough, Limerick. 76 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH could take, instead of the oath of supremacy, which they might not take without being guilty of apostacy. This “ Grace ” also allowed Catholic lawyers to practise in the Courts of Law. Then come some ameliorations for the Court of Wards, which were of general application, and the fees of the Law Courts are dealt with. By the twenty-fourth “ Grace,” granted “ for the better settling of our subjects in that Kingdom” [Ireland], the search into title is limited to sixty years — a grace in favour of the “ undertakers ” as well as of the ancient inhabitants. The twenty-fifth grace was an important one, for it gave permission, once again, to the plundered inhabitants of Clare and Connaught to have their properties enrolled in Chancery, and thereby escape the confiscation already pronounced against them, as related at page 56 ; and the fees they had previously paid in were to be placed to their credit in this new settlement. The next “ Grace” having any special application to the Catholics was the forty- ninth, which says, “No extraordinary warrants of assistance touching clandestine marriages, christenings or burials, or any contumacies pretended against ecclesiastical jurisdiction are to be issued by the Lord Deputy, or by any other governors, nor ex- ecuted.” This appears to be intended to allow priests to exercise some of their functions, without being obliged to submit to “ the severe demands ” of the protestant clergy.'^" The fiftieth is for the relief of outlaws whose outlawry has been reversed. The fifty-first and last “ Grace ” regarded the tenure of land, and affects Protestants as well as Catholics. Thus do we find in Charles’s fifty-one “ Graces,” or concessions, only four or five specially framed for the relief of the Catholics. * By a schedule of tithes or ecclesiastical dues there were payable Easter offerings, clerFs wages, dues for christening, for churching of women, marriages, mortuaries, which meant tithes of the goods left by deceased persons, privy tithes, which were dues payable by tradesmen, sellers of small wares, &c., tithes on milk and calves, on lambs, kids, and pigs, on foals, on eggs. The rating of eggs is curious, it is, for every hen two eggs to be paid at Easter, and for every cock three. There were dues for mills, for gardens, dues on herbage, and things payable in kind, such as all sorts of corn, peas, beans, apples and all other kinds of fruit, flax, hops, wood under twenty years growth, turf, honey, wax, wool, pigeons, rabbits, geese, ducks and other fowl, fishes of all sorts, &c. The various things titheable numbered at least to three score. Patent and Close Bolls, Charles I. pp. 551 & 552. Exhaustive as the list of tithes and church dues claim- able by law seems to have been, the protestant clergy were not content with it, but exacted dues for services which they could not or would not discharge. The Parliamentary Committee, which presented a Remonstrance of Grievances to the King, says : “ Of their own knowledge [those grievances] were so clever and manifest that no place was left for denial of proof. Part of those recited in their journals are the scandalous extortions of the ecclesiastical courts for old papistic rites and customs, condemned and renounced by those very persons who then so greedily exacted the profits formerly annexed to them, which it seems they still deemed orthodox.” Curry's Civil Wars, Vol. 1., p. 169. IN IRELAND. 77 Many of the other “Graces” were of much value to the Kingdom at large, and well calculated to advance prosperity, but Usher and the other protestant prelates elected to forego those advantages, rather than that the Catholics should obtain any portion of that religious liberty, which protestants so osten- tatiously claim as the unalienable right of all Christians ; and an essentially necessary claim it is for them to put forward, in- asmuch as the Reformers who rebelled against Rome had no other possible principle upon which to rest that rebellion ; but what becomes of it when their successors, who pretend to stand by it, turn persecutors for conscience sake ? The bishops, who met at Primate Usher’s, express their virtuous indignation at the bare idea of granting toler- ation to the papists in respect of any money to be given by them for the King’s service. To do so, they say, would be “ to set religion to sale, and with it the souls of the people whom Christ our Saviour redeemed with his most precious blood.” What suitable name can we give this high sounding cant, when it is declared by the weightiest protestant authorities, that those very same bishops knew perfectly well that the Livings in the protes- tant church, that suits in the Ecclesiastical Courts, that, in short, everything, which ought to be held sacred, was bought and sold in the most public and shameful manner. “ In these Courts [the protestant Ecclesiastical Courts] bribes,” says Bishop Burnet, “ went about almost barefaced ; and the exchange they made for money was the worst sort of simony.”* It was notorious that the meeting of bishops at Usher’s house was convened by Usher himself, and most probably their “Judgment,” quoted above, was drawn up by him ; yet bishop Bedel told the self-same Primate Usher that, “whereas he [Bedel] was wont to except one of these [Ecclesiastical] Courts [meaning the Primate’s] from the general corruption, yet he heard it was said among great personages, that his Grace’s Court was as corrupt as others ; some said it was worse ; and that of his Grace’s late visitation they saw no profit but the taking of the money.”! Even Cox, the champion of the English and protestant cause in Ireland, thus writes : “ Nor was the beauty of the protestant church sullied by its avowed enemies only ; it was more defaced by its pretended friends and members. Things sacred were exposed to sale in a most sordid and scandalous manner ; parsonages and episcopal Sees impoverished, and their revenues were alienated * Burnet’s Life of Bishop Bedel, p. 81, 2nd Ed. t Ibid. 78 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH and encumbered to that degree, that both the bishoprics of Kilmore and Ardagh were not sufficient to support a bishop that would not use indirect means to get money ; and the churches were generally out of repair.”* So much for the “Judgment^’ of the twelve bishops and their simulated horror of putting to sale things sacred. The Delegates, who waited on Charles in England, carried back with them the fifty-one “ Graces,” together with instruc- tions to Falkland, the Lord Deputy, to summon a Parliament, in order that these “ Graces” might be stamped with its approval. He at once obeyed the King s commands and issued the writs, but in doing so, omitted an essential condition, and this made the writs illegal. He did not comply with Poyning’s law, which required that ‘‘ no Parliament be holden in Ireland until the acts be certified into England.” That is : the acts for the con- sideration of which the parliament was summoned should be previously submitted to the King and Privy Council, and when “ affirmed by the King and his Council to be good and expedient for Ireland, and his licence thereupon!'’ given, they were sent back to Ireland, when alone they could be legally submitted to the Irish Parliament. This law not having been complied with by Lord Falkland, the writs issued by him were of no value. Some very suspicious mystery hangs over this affair. Surely, the King, or at least his Privy Council, and if not either of these, Falkland or his advisers in Ireland, knew full well that a compliance with Poyning’s law was an essential condition to the legality of the parliament ; yet it was not attended to. Further still ; the oversight, if it were such, could have been easily remedied, inasmuch as the instructions for the summon- ing of this parliament were sent to Ireland in May, and in those instructions the third of the following November was named for the assembling of the parliament — a period which afforded ample time to rectify the error. But nothing was done. Leland’s observations on this matter are very just. He says : Whether the irregularity were casual or premeditated, nothing could have been corrected more easily and readily, if Charles had been sincerely disposed to give effectual relief and satis- faction to his Irish subjects. Yet no new writs were issued ; nor any time assigned for a legal and regular convention of the Irish Parliament.”f No parliament was convened and the Graces remained unconfirmed ; yet, the Catholics, although much disappointed, * Sir Eichard Cox’s Hibernia Anglicana, Vol. 2, p. 53. t Leland’s History of Ireland, Vol. 2, p. 487. Quart. Ed. IN IRELAND. 79 clung to the belief that so important a state paper as that con- ceding the Graces could not be allowed to remain a dead letter. Meantime the Puritans got up an exciting agitation about the Graces, and they were denounced from every pulpit in Ireland, as intolerable and exclusive concessions to the papists. The same was said of them in England. We have seen how very unfounded this view was, but it served party purposes for the time. Thorough protestant writer as Dr. Leland was, he says of them that they were “ such as in general were evidently reasonable and equitable, calculated for the redress of those grievances which persons of all denominations had experienced, and tending to the peace and prosperity of the whole nation.”* * * § And another protestant historian writes : — “ It is manifest that those articles [the Graces] were not only founded in equity, but in policy; that they were well calculated to tranquillize the nation, by securing the blessings of good government.”! The “ Graces” remained in abeyance, but the agitation which they had occasioned among the protestants rose so high, that the Lord Deputy (Faulkland), pressed by it, and urged by the Privy Council, in less than a year after the grantiug of them, published a Proclamation against popish ecclesiastics, whom he charged and commanded in “his Majesty’s name to forbear the exercise of their popish rites and ceremonies.” To Faulkland’s honour be it said, that he took little or no pains to have this proclamation put in force, for he “ was not the man to carry into execution the dishonest projects of the English Council.”J Not so his successors, the Lords Justices, who being “ exceedingly zealous against Popery,” immediately directed that the Papists should be prosecuted for not coming to church ; hut this order was, for the time, countermanded from EDgland.§ The Catholics paid at least nine-tenths of the free subsidies granted to the King ; yet the Protestants were, or affected to be, much provoked at having to pay any portion at all of them, and kept agitating and asserting that the true way to provide supplies for the army was to fine the Papists for absenting themselves from the Protestant service. The king did not come entirely into their view, as Wentworth, who had become all-powerful with him, was opposed to it for reasons given hereafter ; but reluctance to pay the subsidies having been openly expressed by the Catholics, seeing that they never * Hist, of Ireland, Vol, 1, p. 483. t Taylor’s Civil Wars, Vol. 1, p. 250, t Cox, Vol. 2, p. 53. § Lingard, vol. 7. p. 200. II Cox, vol. 2. p. 54. 80 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH received any of the promised Graces, it was thought politic to terrify them by allowing the persecution to proceed, and so frighten them into continuing the subsidies. Through the incessant intrigues of Usher and the Puritans, Faulkland was recalled, and Adam Loftus, Viscount Ely, and Richard, Earl of Cork, were appointed Lords Justices in October, 1629. On St. Stephen’s day in that year there was High Mass in the Franciscan Church in Cook Street, Dublin, such being the usual devotion on solemn festivals. At the sama time the Lords Justices were in Christ’s Church, hard by, at the Protestant service. The devotions in Cook Street having been notified to their Lordships, “ they sent the Archbishop of Dublin, the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Recorder of the City, with a file of musketeers to apprehend them (the priests engaged in the function), which they did, taking away the crucifixes and paraments of the altar ; the soldiers having cut down the image of St. Francis, the priests and friars were delivered into the hands of the pursuivants.”* The people having recovered from the first shock of this astounding outrage, rushed after the Arch- bishop, Dr. Bulkeley and his jposse comitatusy rescued the priests, and compelled the Archbishop to take refuge in a house. Reinforcements having arrived at the scene, he was rescued and protected from further peril. Eight Catholic Aldermen were imprisoned for not having assisted the Mayor in making this unprovoked attack upon their religion and its sacred ministers. The High Mass in Cook Street was represented in England as a daring contempt of the law, and a dreadful shock to the Protestant feeling of the country. The result was that, by an order of the English Privy Council, fifteen Catholic Churches were seized for “ the King’s use,” and the Catholic College in Back Lane, Dublin, was handed over to Trinity College, which immediately converted it into a Protestant Seminar3\ This revival of persecution in Dublin was afterwards extended over the whole kingdom, as well it might, for the English Privy Council informed the Lords Justices of Ireland that his Majesty in person was pleased openly in Council, and in most gracious manner, to approve and commend their ability and good service; * Hammon L’Estrange, a cotemporary authority quoted by Curry, Civil Wars, Vol. 1. p. 114. The ordinary authorities say this outrage was perpe- trated in a Carmelite Church. Mr. Gilbert in his History of Dublin, vol. 1. p. 299, informs us that both the Carmelite and Franciscan Churches were, at the time, in Cook Street, and that it was in the latter the outrage was committed ; and this view is sustained by the importance attached to the destruction of the statue of St. Francis — sure to be a prominent object in a Church of his order, but which would not be usually found in a Carmelite Church at all. IN IRELAND. 81 whereby they might be sufficiently encouraged to go on, with the like resolution and moderation, till the work was done, as well in the city as in other places of the Kingdom, leaving to their discretion when and where to carry a soft or harder hand.^ It may be alleged now, as it was then, that Papists had vio- lated the law, and so brought upon themselves the attack re- corded above. It must be admitted that to celebrate Mass, or to assist at it was an offence punishable by a statute of the 2nd of Elizabeth, passed in her first Irish parliament, held in 1559- 60. Of that parliament I have already given some account. It was not a representative body at all, having been summoned from ten counties only ; it was not even a parliament of the Pale. Still, packed as it was, the great majority of its members were avowed Catholics, or at least Catholics at heart, who would not be likely to pass a law to punish their priests for saying Mass, or to fine or imprison themselves and their co-religionists for assisting at it, so that it is a mystery how the law was smuggled through parliament. But even accepting it as the ex- pression of a properly constituted Irish House of Commons — which it was not, — the policy of Charles and Faulkland, his Lord Deputy (who had only just left Ireland) was a policy of toleration, so that for a considerable time this penal law had been in abeyance. Moreover, the whole proceeding took place without any regular process of law, such as was required by the statute. When news was brought to Christ’s Church that Mass was being celebrated at Cook Street, the Archbishop, deserting his religious duties in his own Church, proceeds with a file of soldiers to the Catholic Church hard by, arrests the priests at the altar, and seizes the vestments and other sacred articles without showing any legal authority for the proceeding. The whole was a sudden, lawless, military raid, unconstitutional and indefensible. To he sure the Lord Mayor and some Aldermen were there, who had, I presume, authority to quell a riot, but none whatever to arrest people engaged peaceably at their devotions, much less to * Gabala or Scrinia Sacra, 3rd Ed. p. 297. The remarkable document from which the above is taken is from “ The Lords of the Council in England to the Lords of the Council in Ireland, January 31, 1639,” in which the following passages also occur : “ When such people [the friars] be permitted to swarm, they will soon grow licentious, and endure no government but their own.” Orders are given ‘ ‘ That the house wherein Seminary Friars appeared in their habits, and wherein the Reverend Archbishop and the Mayor of Du blin received the first affront, be speedily demolished and be the mark of terror to the resisters of authority.” And further they tell them to “ use all fit means to dis- cover the founders, benefactors, and maintainers of such societies and colleges, and certify their names ; and that they find out the Lands, Leases, and Reve- nues applied to their uses, and dispose thereof according to law.” F 82 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH profane and demolish the sacred furniture of the Church, like a party of lawless wreckers. The Catholics were at last aroused to a consciousness of the position in which they stood, and of the deceptions practised upon them. The “ Graces” for which they undertook the payment of £120,000 in three years were not only withheld from them, but the government had re-entered upon a course of active per- secution against them. They justly complained of being obliged to pay money for which they had not got the concessions promised by the King himself ; and, says Sir R. Cox with cool effrontery, at length they gained their point, and instead of £10,000 quarterly, the government condescended to take £5,000 per quarter,” until the whole £120,000 should be paid."^ And this wonderful condescension was all the Catholics received for their £120,000, except indeed the Proclamation against their religion. The Lords Justices having governed Ireland for nearly four years were succeeded by the notorious Wentworth, than whom there had not been in all England a more violent opposer of the King’s prerogative, or a more strenuous assertor of the people’s liberties, in the earlier part of his career ; but having turned over to the Court party in 1629, he was made a baron, and soon after a Viscount. He at once became the most devoted and trusted servant of Charles, working for him and promoting his designs with all the zeal of a convert. As Viscount Wentworth he was sent Lord Deputy to Ireland in 1633 was raised to the dignity of Lord Lieutenant as Earl Strafford in 1639 ; was cursed and hated as Black Tom by the Irish people, and finally beheaded in England, for High Treason in IGil.f He was a man of much ability, determined will, and boundless ambition. Whilst the Catholics felt justly aggrieved at having to continue the payment of the subsidy, the protestants endeavoured to avoid paying any of it at all, maintaining, as already stated, that the * Cox says one-third of the £120,000 would have fallen on the Protestants. Carte says the same : Life of Ormond, Vol. 1 j but the Catholic Nobility and Gentry, in their Remonstrance of Grievances to the King’s Commissioners^ at Trim in 1640, say they bore nine parts in ten in the payment of subsidies. Curry, Vol. 1, p. 113. t Thomas, lOth Earl of Ormonde was perhaps even still more known than Wentworth as “Black Tom.” He was the playmate of Edward the 6th, ^ who delighted in his company. He was a brave soldier, a clever pliant politician, became a protestant, and was high in the favour of Queen Elizabeth, who, it is said, used to call him her “ Black Husband.” It was he who crushed the Earl of Desmond, for which the Queen rewarded her black husband very poorly ; but he had great enemies at Court. He was blind for the last 12 years of his life. Like many other unprincipled adventurers of the time, he became a Catholic at his death. De Rothe Analecta, New Ed., p. 44. IN IRELAND. 83 true way to raise money to support the army was to levy off the Catholics the old fine of 12d. a Sunday for absenting themselves from the protestant service; but Wentworth set no value on this system of fines, either as a means of raising money for the King, or of compelling Catholics to turn protestants. His views on both subjects were far more radical and extensive. He had made up his mind to carry out the confiscations planned by James, which he considered a far more effective engine of proselytism than fines ; and he was firmly opposed to the granting of the “ Graces,” as one of them, and a chief one, was a permission to the landowners of Clare and Connaught to secure to themselves legal possession of those lands which he had marked out for confiscation. His second great means for making Ireland pro- testant was the Court of Wards, as he felt convinced that once the rich Catholics became protestant the poorer sort would, as a matter of course, follow their example. So he revived that Court in all its activity and severity. This was a bold far- reaching policy, and if carried out “ thorough,” to use his own favourite word, would have finished what James had begun, namely, the rooting out of all the rich Catholics or the com- pelling them to become protestants. He was also opposed to subsidies as being too uncertain for supplying money for the King’s service, but was content to receive the subsidy of £120,000 until he had matured his plans for securing a permanent revenue. Wentworth summoned a Parliament to meet in July, 1634, which he had taken great pains beforehand to make subservient to his wishes. Having fully made up his mind as to the kind of Parliament he required, he with admirable dexterity matured plans to secure it. Together with the election writs he tells us that he also sent out letters recommending such candidates as he and his Council believed were “ ablest and best for his Majesty’s service endeavouring with all his power and diligence “to get the House to be composed of qvbiet and governable men that is, men to be governed by him, who would submit to do his bidding, be it what it might, and to do it in the manner required by him, how- ever mean and degrading. The Catholic element still predominated enormously. Wentworth himself says Catholics were to protes- tants as a hundred to one ; and the persons eligible for Parliament were still mostly Catholics, except the officers and servants of the Crown. Previous Lord Deputies had endeavoured to estab- lish protestant ascendancy in Parliament ; Wentworth, although he hated the papists, was too politic to do this, he preferred to Straff. Letters, Vol. 1, p. 259. 84 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH have the parties pretty well balanced, with a certain number of the dependent creatures of the government in his hands, by whose aid the balance could be turned whichever way he pleased. By bullying the Sheriffs, and using, without scruple, all the power of the government, he succeeded in carrying out his design. Still the protestants were in the majority, for he says in a letter to the Secretary, “ This House is very well composed, so as the protestants are the majority ; and this may be of great use to confirm and settle his majesty’s title to the plantations of Connaught and Ormonde; for this you may be sure of, all the protestants are for plantations, all the others are against them ; so that these being the greater number, you can want no help they can give you therein.” Quite true : for a plantation meant the robbing and rooting out of Catholic proprietors, and the giving of their lands to protestants. He further says “ he considered that majority of the protestants in the House of Commons as a good rod to hold over the papists.”* The protestants who constituted the actual majority, numbering 134, were chiefly or entirely dependants of the Crown, who must obey the Lord Deputy in anything and everything. These he believed to be all-important to him, for he felt that an occasion might arise when he would require a majority, even against the Protestant party, which might on some occasion or other oppose his will. His policy was to play off the two parties — Protestant and Catholic — against each other, whilst he held in his own hands a sufficient number of votes to give him a majority at whichever side he desired it. This he states in terms. ‘‘ I shall labour,” he says, “ to make as many Captains and Officers burgesses in this Parliament as I possibly can, who having immediate dependance on the Crown, may always sway the business between the two parties which way they please.”t Wentworth not only discharged the office of a faithful servant to Charles, but that of a most subservient tool likewise, carrying out his unconstitutional projects in the face of every difficulty, and taking upon himself the entire responsibility and odium of doing so ; for all which he received but poor recompense in the end, Charles having abandoned him to the fury of his many enemies. But Wentworth should have known his patron suffi- ciently not to be much surprised at such treacherous conduct, which was, in some sense, a just retribution on the man who had deceived and ruined so many for the sake of this weak and treacherous Stuart. Wentworth was against conceding the * Stratford’s Letters, Vol. 1, lot. 353. t Ibid., Vol. l,p. 247. JN IRELAND. 85 Graces,” chiefly because they interfered with his flxed deter- mination to confiscate Connaught from the Catholics, and plant it with Protestants. Charles was as anxious as he to rob the Catholic proprietors of that Province, and as anxious to with- hold the Graces too. Hence he writes to Wentworth that it would not “be worse for him” (Wentworth) though that Parlia- ment’s obstinacy should make him “ break with them,” as this would supply an excuse for refusing the Graces ; “ for,” says Charles, “ I fear that they have some grounds to demand more than it is fit for me to give:” that is, he had no scruple to break his kingly word solemnly given to his Irish subjects, when it suited his interest or convenience to do so. For all this villainy Wentworth made himself responsible. Nay more, in a spirit of the meanest falsehood, to which the proudest are often the readiest to stoop, he said to the Parlia- ment, “ Surely so great a meanness cannot enter your hearts, as once to suspect his Majesty’s gracious regards of you, and per- formance with you, when you affie yourself upon his Grace.’”^ For this contemptible chicanery, the King soon after thanked him in an autograph letter, saying, amongst other things, “ your last dispatch has given me a great deal of contentment, and especially for the keeping off the envy of a necessary negative from me, of those unreasonable Graces that people expect from me.”t Wentworth handled the Parliament with great address,but with still greater deception. He said to them, in an apparently frank and generous spirit, that the King intended to have two sessions, one for himself, and another for them ; that his majesty expected a debt of £100,000 to be discharged, and £20,000 a year, con- stant and standing revenue for the payment of the army ; and that when they had supplied the King with this “ they might be sure his Majesty would go along with them in the next meeting through all the expressions of a gracious and a good king.”]: The Parliament sat ; and Wentworth, as he had said, set apart the first session for the king’s business. Once again the Commons were deceived, and relying upon the word of an unscrupulous liar, voted £240,000 — a sum vastly in excess of what was demanded. They drew up a Remonstrance concerning the promised graces, and especially with regard to the inquiry into defective titles, which they sent to the Lord Deputy. After some time they were summoned to the Council Chamber to receive his answer. Assuming his naturally insolent imperiousness, he told them he * Staiford’s Letters, Vol. 1, p. 68. t Ibid., p. 331. ^ j State Letters. See Plowdea’s Historical Review, pp. 121-2-3. 86 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH would not send the statute of the 21st of James to England, [this was the statute regarding defective titles] but that such refusal was his own, their request never having been so much as sent over. Such intense lying ! He had already sent the statute. He added, that passing an act to prevent inquiry into defective titles was neither good nor expedient for the king- dom, and that with this answer they must rest satisfied, as one that could not and would not be departed from. So much for that promised second session of this Parliament, which was to be specially devoted to the benefit of his people by a “ good and gracious king.” Having obtained all the money he wanted, and having threat- ened, bullied, deceived, and lied “ roundly ” to the Parliament, he dismissed it, and turned at once to his favourite project of despoiling the Catholics of Connaught and planting that Province with Protestants, in the teeth of the twenty-fifth Grace, which was granted by the King, “ on his royal word and “ his princely signature,’’ as the Commons say in the above Bemon- strance. Ho greyhound in sight of his prey ever panted more im- patiently in the leash than did Wentworth long to rush upon the proprietors of Connaught, to chase them from the lands and homes which they had inherited from their ancestors. Imme- diately on the dissolution of this Parliament he applied himself to carrying out the project with a zeal thorough and hearty. There was much in his favour. Ormonde placed his whole pro- perty in Wentworth’s hands, to be dealt with as the King might please, without which proceeding on Ormonde’s part Wentworth confessed he could not have established the King’s claim to that territory. The surrender of upper and lower Ormonde was soon followed by that of Limerick and Clare. The proprietors in these cases felt, no doubt, that if they did not yield willingly their lands would be seized ; so they hoped for better terms by an early and apparently a willing surrender. Wentworth regarded these as good examples for the Con- naught proprietors, which he expected them to follow, but as they seemed not quite so pliant as he desired, he determined to over- awe them ; so he, accompanied by the Plantation Commissioners, proceeded to that Province, taking with them an imposing retinue, together with a military escort of five hundred horse, whom he, Vith grim and caustic humour called “ good lookers on.” ** His project was no less,” says Leland, than to subvert the title to every estate in every part of Connaught, and to estab- lish a new Plantation through the whole Province; a project which when first proposed in the late reign was received with IN IRELAND. 87 horror and amazement, but which suited the undismayed and enterprizing genius of Lord Wentworth.”* * * § He knew well enough that the King had no real title to the lands of Connaught any more than he had to Ormonde. He therefore rejoiced exceed- ingly when the head of the House of Butler placed his large possessions at the King’s disposal, which he mainly did through fear of faring worse by resistance than by submission. He was also, without doubt, strenuously urged to it by Wentworth, whose bosom friend he had become. ‘‘ Where our title was borrowed, or at least supported by my Lord Ormonde, and indeed could not have stood alone upon the King's evidence, I am most confident we shall have like success in Clare.”t The title to Connaught was not a whit better than the title to the Ormonds, but there was no great leading man in Connaught inclined to do for the Lord Deputy what Lord Ormonde did for him in the South. He therefore resolved to carry Connaught by a mixture of deceit and audacity. When he arrived at Boyle great fears and consternation prevailed there, which he at once saw the necessity of allaying ; so he assembled the chief men of the sur- rounding country, and addressed them in one of his most charac- teristic speeches. His reasons for choosing not only the chief men, but the wealthiest for juries, who were to make inquisition as to the title of the King in Connaught are given by himself, and are admirable in their way. Before his Lordship left Dublin, to hold his court of inquisition in Connaught he had given orders to his managers there, that gentlemen of the best estates and understandings, in the different counties, should be returned on the juries which were to be held in the first trials of defective titles. This he did, not — as one might imagine — on a supposi- tion of their greater knowledge, integrity or honour, but because, as he says himself, $ “ this being a leading case for the whole Province, it would set a value, in their estimation, upon the good- ness of the King’s title, if found by those persons of quality.” And on the other hand, if the King’s title should not be found, or as he expresses it, “ if the jury should prevaricate,” he would be sure then to have persons of such means as might answer to the King in a round fine in the Castle Chamber and because the fear of that fine would be apter to produce the desired effect in such persons than in others, who had little or nothing to • Leland, vol. 3, p. 30. t State Letters, vol. 2, p. 93. i State letters, vol. I, p. 442. § Curry’s Civil Wars, Vol. 1, p. 150-1. 88 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH To the gentlemen of quality and of the best estates, assembled at Boyle, Wentworth said that he had come “ to execute his master’s commission, for finding a clear and undoubted title in the Crown to the Province of Connaught.” That being his com- mission, one should suppose there was little room for investiga- tion, examination, or legal proceedings of any kind ; but in order to delude his hearers, and give some colour of law to his spoli- ations, he assured them it was “ his Majesty’s gracious pleasure that every man’s counsel should be fully and willingly heard in defence of his rights ; and his Majesty had further enjoined him,” he said, “to afford his good people all respect and freedom, in the setting forth and defence of their several rights and claims.”* How Wentworth must have laughed in his sleeve at his wicked duplicity, he frankly tells us himself, for he adds : — “ With this I left them marvellously well satisfied, for a few good words please them more than can be im- agined.”! Some lawyers were heard on both sides, but this was merely for form sake, and to play the comedy out. The jury behaved rather well, Wentworth said, especially Sir Lucas Dillon, the Foreman ; yet he felt bound to give them a bit of his mind, after the lawyers were done speaking. He therefore told them “ his Majesty was indifferent whether they found for him or no ; for that he had directed him to press nothing upon them, where the path to his right lay so open and plain before them.” Still, he (Wentworth) “on account of the vast affection he entertained for them and their nation,” advised them “to descend into their own consciences,” where, he was convinced, “ they should find the evidence for the Crown clear and conclusive.” But the ex- cellent Lord Deputy, for fear of mistakes, was thoughtful enough to give them a light to guide them in this examination of con- science, which was, that unless they found the King’s title, as he advised, they should feel the full weight of his anger; a thing, as they well knew, not to be lightly provoked. If they loved truth, he said, and wished to do the best for themselves, they would, as a matter of course, find the King’s title to Con- naught to be, beyond all dispute, perfect ; but on the other hand, if they were passionately determined to follow their own wills “without respect at all for their own good,” he, with charming frankness, advised them not to find any title at all. How he chuckled over this touch of cleverness ! For he adds — “ and there I left them to chaunt together, as they call it, over their * Stafford, State Letters, vol. 1, p. 444. t Ibid. IN IRELAND. 89 evidence, and the next day they found the King’s title without scruple.”* * * § Sligo and Mayo, cowed by the highhanded proceedings of the Lord Deputy in Eoscommon, also found for the King’s title. In Galway, the Lord Deputy did not find such timid and pliant jurors as in the other counties. Galway was almost en- tirely Catholic, and relied very much on the power and influence of the House of Clanrickard to sustain them in resisting the bare- faced and wholesale robbery which was being perpetrated in their province, not so much through cunning forms of law as by an utter contempt of all law and all justice. f The Galway Jury refused to declare that the King had a right to seize, as his own, their long inherited and careful properties. Wentworth was furious, and at once determined to inflict utter ruin upon them. He fined the Sheriff £1,000 for having returned what he called a “packed” jury; and as to the jurymen, they were handed over to the Castle-Chamber (the Star-Chamber of Ireland), by which they were fined £4,000 each (what a sum in those days !) ; their estates were seized, and they themselves cast into prison till the fines should be paid ; nay more, besides paying the fines, they were also bound, before being liberated, to acknowledge their offence in open court on bended knees.J Not only were the Galway jurors consigned to utter destruction but the whole county was treated with exceptional severity. The general rule in this plantation was, that one-fourth of the land should be taken from the native owners, and an increased rent put upon the remainder, but on account of the “prevarication” of the Galway Jury, they were deprived of one-half instead of one-fourth of their lands.§ One touch more and we have done with this picture of Black Tom’s Plantation of Connaught : it is this, that judges, who sat in judgment on the unfortunate proprietors, were openly bribed by him for their verdicts ! and that, too, by the King’s permis- sion! for he, Wentworth, obtained authority to bestow four shillings in the pound upon the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chief Baron, out of the first year’s rent raised upon the land * Ibid. t The Clanrickard of the time was a very important personage, the same who was afterwards Lord Deputy. He was a zealous Catholic, and is said to have been a man of strong religious feelings. Clarendon, Carte, and Castle- haven speak of him in the highest terms. X Leland, Vol. 3, p. 32. § By some interference this was changed to one-fourth, the same as the rest of the province. “ Prevarication ” and “ prevaricate ” and their modifications, were, like “thorough,” favourite words with Wentworth. 90 THE BATTLE OE THE FAITH adjudged to the King by the Commission of defective titles. This he, like a brave and hardy villain, says, “ he found upon observation, to be the best given that ever was ; for, that by these means they did intend that business with as much care and dili- gence as if it were their own private ; and that every four shil- lings, over paid, would better his Majesty’s revenue four pounds.”* What a courageous, a frank, heroic, and withal charming villain was not the notorious black Tom Wentworth ! Strafford’s State Letters, Vol. 2, p. 465. IN IRELAND. 91 CHAPTER VIIL RETROSPECT. Over one hundred years (1535 to 1640) had passed from the time George Browne took possession of the See of Dublin to the close of Wentworth’s administration in Ireland. Before we enter on the great struggle which commenced in 1641, let us glance back upon that period. George Browne represents the beginning of the religious innovation which arose chiefly from the King’s passionate wish to divorce his lawful wife, Catherine of Arragon, but partly from that headstrong, arrogant disposition of his, which would brook no contradiction where his interests and his passions were engaged. Henry never was a protestant in the true and accepted sense of that word. He seized the spiritual supremacy rather to spite the Pope than to found a new religion, but having once broken away from the Catholic Church, a return to it be- came, day after day, more difficult, on account of his unbridled licence, the advice of parasites who were profiting by the change, and his own extravagance, which emptied the treasury, and drove him to suppress and rob the religious houses. Still, Henry’s conduct with regard to the supremacy gave rise to as sharp a religious controversy as if he had denied all the articles of the Hicene Creed. He had considerable success in bending the minds of the English people to his views, but in Ireland his claim to the spiritual headship was met by the most determined resistance. Browne of Dublin and Staples of Meath were the only prelates who laboured to carry out his wishes here, but their labours were thrown away upon an ‘‘ungrateful people,” as those prelates themselves declared ; and Browne assured his Majesty that his (Browne’s) “ temporal life ” was in continual danger, because he endeavoured to serve his Majesty ; and of the people, he wrote to the King, that they were more zealous in their blindness than the saints and martyrs were in the truth at the beginning of the Gospel. The religious situation in Ireland underwent no noteworthy change during Edward’s short reign, whilst in Mary’s still shorter one, persecution of Catholics ceased, but an exterminating war was carried on against the native Irish, much the same as it had been in previous reigns. 92 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Elizabeth and her astute advisers planned laws, and had them enacted, well calculated to apply the royal reforming axe to the root of popery in Ireland. In her first Irish Parliament, which met the year after she had come to the throne, the law regarding the oath of supremacy was so much extended that no clergyman could receive holy Orders and no heir could inherit his property without taking it. Thus was abolished (1) the power of ordain- ing priests in Ireland ; and thus (2) was the rule established that no one, without renouncing his faith, no Catholic, could inherit property to which he was the undoubted, undisputed heir ; and thus were the Catholics of Ireland compelled, as far as law could compel them, to become protestants, or to fight the battle of their religion at fearful odds. Every landed proprietor must become a protestant or a beggar ; so that all who had capacity and position to be leaders of the people were, of necessity, to be lost to them within a single generation. By the Queen^s scheme for the plantation of Munster, the whole people of that province were to be annihilated, for it not only disqualified the natives [Catholics] from retaining any of the land in their possession, but it expressly forbade the English, to whom the land w^as made over, to retain them as servants, or work people, or in any capacity tuhatever. This diabolic plan did not succeed to the full measure of the wishes or expectations of Elizabeth, but it was not through any fault of hers, for her full determination was that Munster should become English and Protestant in seven years ; and if it did not, the cause arose from the difficulty of getting English to settle in Ireland, and also from the brave and determined resistance of the disinherited people. And let it not be supposed that it was for their lands only the people fought ; they fought quite as much, if not more, for their religion, as their treatment of the young Earl of Desmond, when they saw him going to the protestant worship, and as many other incidents of the period, abundantly prove. Some English writers, to suit their own views, assume that the Irish of that period had no religion, or next to none. There is plenty of evidence to show the falsehood of this ; although the opportunity of giving the people complete or regular instruction was to a great extent taken away by their being so long engaged in wars, defending their lives, their liberties and their property. Later on, the opportunity of imparting instruction was rendered still more difficult by those inhuman statutes which deprived them of their religious teachers. To hang the schoolmaster, as the English did in Ireland, and then charge the people with ignorance, is cool effrontery indeed. In spite of persecution, however, they had quite enough knowledge to feel. IN IRELAND. 93 that by adhering to the Church of E-ome they were adhering to the true church — the church of their fathers — the Church which St. Patrick had founded, and that by opposing the new doctrines which the Sovereigns of England tried to force upon them, knew they were rejecting a heresy which they believed would destroy their hopes of salvation.* Besides, the Irish were not so ignorant in the remotest parts of the kingdom, where they were still free to learn, as they were in the neighbourhood of the English towns, where it was certain death for a priest to be found. The Irish seem to have entertained very sanguine hopes that James I. would relax the persecuting statutes enacted against them by his predecessor, Elizabeth, but it was soon made apparent to them that they had nothing to expect from him in the way of toleration. He enforced the penal laws made in her reign, and had new ones passed. He established the Court of Wards, of which he was very proud, and he determined to plant the remaining three Provinces as Elizabeth had planted Munster, but more effectively and with more safeguards to secure success. When Elizabeth got hold of an Irish Catholic heir, as happened in the young Earl of Desmond’s case, she made him a protestant ; but James improved on this system by making a law which con- stituted the King guardian of all minors. To give effect to this law a Court of Wards was established. The minors were searched for, and taken possession of, and protestant guardians appointed for them, whose chief business it was to teach them contempt and hatred for the religion of their fathers. James planted Ulster with English and Scotch Protestants, and so effectively too, that Catholicity was for a long time supposed to be practi- cally abolished in that Province. Elated with his success in Ulster, he prepared for the Plantation of Leinster and Con- naught, and was actually engaged in that work at the time of his death. So that the son of the Catholic Mary Stuart had done more to root the Faith out of Ireland than Elizabeth herself, with her long reign and commanding talents. Two things, how- ever, she must get credit for, she prepared the ground for him, very well, and left him a bright example. Charles the First’s government of Ireland was marked by the great leading faults attributed to the House of Stuart — duplicity, weakness, falsehood, persecution. The fifty-one Grraces, or concessions, solemnly promised under his hand, were never granted; the money raised by the people, which was, IN FACT, * O’Sullivan’s Catholic History, p. 133. Dublin Ed. 1850. 94 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH the purchase money of those graces, was paid down. Nay more than was promised or asked for, was paid down, but the goods thus purchased were never delivered; the royal word was pledged, but was never redeemed. The King's apologists put forward various excuses for this, but his own letters to Went- worth, some passages of which are cited above, prove conclusively that his real desire was to get the money and then shuffle out of the compact as best he could ; and Wentworth, his man of all work in Ireland, proud and arrogant to others, gave him the meanest and most disgraceful aid in doing so ; but pride and meanness, like lead and silver are often found in close proximity in the same mine. Wentworth had a motive of his own, too, in having the Graces withheld, for some of them, if granted, would have prevented the carrying out of his favourite scheme for the confiscation of Connaught, on which he entered heart and soul, the first moment he was ready. It has been said of him that he cared little for religion; that he plundered Connaught not to advance protestantism, but to assert the king's preroga- tive, and to raise money for him. That may be. The motive was, practically, of no importance in the case ; Connaught was a Catholic Province, and the effect of confiscating it would be to root the Catholic religion out of it, no matter what the motive or pretence might be. Let each one seek motives or supply them as he may please — the whole tendency of English rule in Ireland, from Henry the 8th to the death of Charles the 1st was to exterminate the Irish race and with them the Catholic Eeligion. Before Henry the 8th’s time, or rather before Elizabeth's, the making of Ireland a thorough English colony, was deemed sufficient for the success and stability of English rule in Ireland ; but by the Protestant Eeformation a new element was imported into the system of colonizing and governing this country. Hence, in the Plantation of Munster and Ulster the colonists were not only required to be English, but it was made an essential condition that they should be also members of the new religion. For a long time the Pale was the trusted and only English garrison in Ireland, but when protestantism was intro- duced, the Palesmen were utterly distrusted, because although English to the hearts’ core, they persisted in remaining true to the old Eeligion. It was naturally believed that the planting of all Ireland with English and Scotch protestants, a system planned, and, as far as lay in her power, carried out by Eliza- beth, would secure a complete change of religion in Ireland, as it might be fairly supposed, that it would involve the Irish enemy and Popery in one common ruin. But in places to IN IRELAND. 95 which her authority had not as yet fully extended this could not be done at once, so the policy of bringing over and reforming the independent Chiefs was adopted by her as the next best expedient; a system upon which James, as we have seen, improved, by seizing their heirs and educating them as protes- tants. I c 96 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH CHAPTE R IX. THE WAR OF 1641, AND THE CAUSES WHICH LED TO IT. Almost all the Protestant writers on the war which commenced in 1641, assert that there was peace and toleration for the Catholics of Ireland for many years before it broke out ; hut in this assertion they merely copy Temple in the most servile manner. He says : — “ The private exercise of all their religious rites and ceremonies was fully enjoyed by them [the Catholics] without any manner of disturbance, and not any of the laws put in execution, whereby heavy penalties were to be inflicted upon transgressors in that kind.” And again : — “ The two nations had now lived together forty years in peace, with great security and comfort, which had in a manner consolidated them into one body, knit and compacted together with all those bonds and ligatures of friendship, alliance, and consanguinity, as might make up a constant and perpetual union betwixt them.”* Having given a glowing description of the perfect happiness in which the Catholics lived for many years before 1641, Clarendon says : — ** In this blessed condition of peace and security, the English and the Irish, the protestant and Koman Catholic lived mingled together in all provinces of the kingdom, quietly trafficking with one and another during the whole happy reign of King James.”t The chief traffic in Ulster during that happy reign was the robbing of the Catholics of 3,000,000 acres which was bestowed on Scotch and English planters. What a millennium for the Catholics of Ulster was not James’s reign ! Kabid partizans like Clarendon and Borlase might be fairly expected to follow these assertions, and even enlarge upon them, as they have done, but it is strange to find such writers as Carte and Warren repeat them almost word for word. It was nearly forty years from the death of Elizabeth till the war of 1641 ; hence the assumption is, that during the reign of James I., and the chief part of that of his son Charles, the Catholics practised their religion unmolested. How unfounded this is, may be seen from the account I have already given of * Temple’s History of the Rebellion of 1641, p. 15, 4to Ed. t Clarendon’s Historical Review of the Affairs of Ireland, p. 7. Dub. Ed. 1719. IN lllELANl). 97 those two reigns, the principal points of which, I think, maybe briefly, and with advantage, repeated here. The fact is, that James enforced the penal statutes against the Irish Catholics with as much if not greater rigour than Elizabeth. In 1605, soon after coming to the throne, he banished the regular clergy from Ireland by Proclamation, and, later on, the secular priests were commanded to quit the kingdom in the same summary manner.^ By an additional clause which Chichester wickedly foisted into the King’s Proclamation, in order to bring Recusants within the grasp of the Star Chamber, sixteen Catholic Aider- men of the City of Dublin were heavily fined, and kept prisoners in the Castle, for not attending the Lord Mayor to Protestant service. James, however, highly approved of Chichester’s action in the matter, and “ sends him his very hearty commendations” for his proceedings in “ beginning to redress the corruptions of religion.”! The king goes on to lament the seduction of the people by seminary priests and Jesuits “ and that there is no other means to reclaim them than by a commanding authority that may draiu them to he present at Divine Service^ and to hear God’s word for their instruction; and that the command- ment cannot take place unless it be published, nor by any way so well published as by proclamation, nor the proclamation be available unless punishment be imposed on contemptuous disobedience.’’^ The Plantation of Ulster began in 1608, and ended in 1620 ; that is, this wholesale robbery of an entire pro- vince was finished just twenty-one years before the breaking out of the war of 1641. Temple and his copyists may talk of toleration, but the seizure from the Catholics of over 3,000,000 acres of their soil, to hand them over to English and Scotch protestants, with the avowed object of making Ulster protestant, is a strange specimen of toleration. The protestant bishops were never done complaining of the toleration given to priests and papists in Ireland, and of the non- enforcement of the laws against them. The Bishop of Raphoe 1 • Proclamation of the 4th of July, 1605, the King says “ Whereas his Majesty was informed, that his subjects of Ireland had been deceived by a false report, that his Majesty was disposed to allow them liberty of conscience, and the free choice of a religion, contrary to that which he had always professed him« self ; by which means it has happened that many of his subjects of that kingdom had hrmly resolved to remain constantly in that religion. Wherefore, he declared to all his subjects, that he would not admit any such liberty of conscience as they y^^e made to expect by that reporV^ He then enjoins the strict and minute observance of the Act of Uniformity. [The Italics in the above extract are the Author’s.] t Desiderata Cur. Hib. Vol. 1, p. 463. X Hill’s Plantation of Ulster. G THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH 9cS went to the King to complain of religious abuses in Ulster, and of the toleration accorded to Papists. He submitted to his Majesty what he called “ Overtures for advancement of the true religion and suppressing of Papistrie within the realm of Ireland ; ” upon which the King had certain articles drawn up, which he sent to Chichester. The first of those articles is, that “ There must be a uniform order set down for suppressing of Papistry and planting of the Church, which must be followed forthwith, and prosecuted by every archbishop and bishop without exception.” Again, Article 5 says : — “ They [the bishops] should be ordained to take heed to trafficking Papists, Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and vaga- bond friars, to apprehend them and present them to the King’s Deputy.”* " The Commissioners whom James sent to Ireland in 1613 were furnished with two sets of instructions ; one set had reference to the constitution of the Parliament of that year, the ^other empowered them to inquire into the general grievances of the country, especially the state of religion. As to religion they deplore very much the way in which it was neglected ; they re- * April 26th, 1611. Calendar of State Papers (Ireland), pp. 31 — 2. The Bishop of Eaphoe here referred to was the same Andrew Knox mentioned at page 67, and a Puritan of a very pronounced type ; yet, Puritan though he was, and the enemy of episcopacy, as he was bound to be by his religious prin- ciples, he managed to get over his scruples so far as to be bishop of two different sees during his life ; for he was bishop of Orkney, in Scotland, before he was translated to Raphoe. His great patron was James Hamilton (the eldest son of Hans Hamilton, of Dunlop, in Scotland), who was raised to the peerage by James I. under the title of Viscount Claneboye. This James Hamilton was sent to Ireland by James, while yet King of Scotland only, “in order,” says Lodge (Vol. 3, p. 1.), “to hold a correspondence with the English of that Kingdom, and inform his Majesty from time to time of the state, condition, inclinations, and designs of the Irish in case of Queen Elizabeth’s death.” When James came to the English throne he did not forget the services of his spy ; he loaded him with honours, and with more substantial favours iu the form of extensive grants of land. Of course he was a genuine Puritan, and by his power with the King got Knox translated to Raphoe. Knox did not confer orders according to the Book of Common Prayer, but to appear to fulfil the law, and at the same time to quiet the consciences of the candidates who pre- sented themselves, he went through a form, ‘ ‘ assisted by the neighbouring brethren,” as he admits, which form conferred no orders at all, and was not meant to confer them. A Mr. Livingston, one of those so prepared for mis- sionary work, calls the bishop “ Mr. Andrew Knox, Bishop of Raphoe.” Mant is very severe on Knox for playing Puritan and bishop at the same time. History of the Church of Ireland, Vol. 1. p. 456 et seq. Although human weak- ness got the better of Knox with regard to episcopacy, he remained as valiant and zealous as ever against popery. In 1611 he sent his dean with a letter to Salisbury about “the reformation of the abuses of the Irish Church,” asking his lordship “to let him (the bishop) understand either by word or writing his advice touching the same, and his furtherance in such particulars as he will point out, tending to the glory of God, and quieting of that wicked seed of sedition, the Antichrist Romayne.” Calendar of State Papers, 1611 — 1614, p. 25. IN IRELAND, 99 port that the people have no respect for it, that the nobility and leading men harbour priests, and that many of the churches were in ruins. “For remedying of these ever-flowing evils we [they] suggest a strict execution of the laws against Popish priests and schoolmasters, for enforcing attendance at Church, and establish- ing sufficient and religious schoolmasters, by the diligent visita- tions of the bishops for the weeding out of Popish priests; and instead of idle and scandalous ministers, to place those that are learned and faithful, and compel them to be resident.”* * * § The Lord Deputyship of Chichester ended in 1616, and from the sketch of his government which I have given elsewhere, no one can doubt his zeal and energy against Catholics. Sir Oliver St. John was appointed his successor, and I am disposed to place him even above Chichester as a priest-hunter and a persecutor for conscience sake. The interval between Chichester’s departure and Sir Oliver St. John’s arrival was filled up by Thomas Jones, Archbishop of Dublin, and Sir John Denham, as Lords Justices, who were quite as zealous against popery as either Chichester or St. John. They were not long in office when they called the Lord Inchequin before them, charging him with a breach of the King’s three Proclamations published against receiving Jesuits, &c. The breach of the Proclamations in this instance was, that “he. Lord Inchequin, entertained in his house one Jlichol as Nugent, a J esuit, that he had heard his masses and wilfully retained him for twenty days, and as the said Lord Inchequin showed no re- pentance or acknowledgement of his ofi’ence, he was censured for contempt, fined £500, and ordered to be committed to his Majesty’s Castle.”t Later on, in 1621, the King himself writes to the Lord Deputy, recommending to him one Alexander Boyd as “being the discoverer and prosecutor of Anderson, the Jesuit;” for which service he was to receive such a sum of money as the Lord Deputy and Council “ shall think he has merited.”]: By a Proclamation bearing date January 21st, 1623, from the Lord Deputy and Council, all bishops, priests, abbots, friars, who set up a foreign authority, and “ who have flocked hither in spite of sundry Proclamations, ordering them to leave the King- dom, now got forty days to depart, which if they do not, they will be arrested and imprisoned, the King having given special directions to that effect.”^ This Proclamation was re- published in July, but its action was suspended by the King in 1625 “for * Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1611 — 1614, p. 447. t Calendar of State Papers, pp. 122, 123, 1615 — 1625. t Ibid, p. 337. § Ibid, p. 399. 100 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH reasons of state;” the reasons of state being the negociations about the Spanish marriage. But these having fallen through, a Proclamation was issued that all the laws which had been passed against popish bishops, priests, &c., were to he put in execution.* There were so many Commissions of inquiry in Ireland during James’s reign that it might be justly called a reign of Commis- sions. One of these, and I believe the last appointed by him, to inquire into that everlasting question, the state of religion in Ireland, made a report on the subject, dated June 20th, 1623, only a year and a half before his death, entitled “ Orders for his Majesty received by the Commissioners concerning the state of the Church in Ireland.” In this document the Commissioners, among other things say, the Lord Deputy and bishops should “choose good schoolmasters and ushers, such as will take the Oath of Supremacy, teach true religion, and that popish school- masters and ushers are to be altogether suppressed : all the re- cusants to be proceeded against, and that the first sessions wherein they are convicted, proclamation is to be made that if they conform not before the next sessions^ then to stand con- victed.”! Thus one cannot glance at James’s reign, even in the most cursory manner, without observing the activity with which his representatives, with his full approval, pursued the work of spoliation and persecution during the whole of it, excepting only the brief respite which policy made him grant, when his agents were negociating the Spanish marriage ; whilst we look in vain for those halcyon days of peace, friendship, and toleration de- scribed by Temple and his followers. The time which elapsed between James’s death and the war of 1641 was chiefiy tilled up by the contemptible double-dealing of Charles with the Catholics, and the high-handed insolence of Wentworth. And even if James’s reign had been a good and tolerant one, instead of being one of persecution, and if the English in Ireland had been a race of amicable improving emi- grants, instead of a domineering race ofexterminators, still the mean, miserable mendacity of his son and successor, Charles, and the swaggering insufierable insolence and wholesale robbery of Went- worth are more than sufidcient to account for, and to justify the war of 1641. But to account fully for that war we must take a more exten- sive view of Irish affairs than that presented by the reign of Elizabeth, James, and Charles ; we must, for a little, go back to * Calendar of State Papers, 1615—1625, p. 459. t Ibid, pp. 418, 419. IN IRELAND. 101 the English invasion itself. At that period both peoples were Catholic, but that did not prevent the growth of those feelings which the invaded always entertain against the invaders. “ If the English looked upon themselves as the conquerors of the others, as the more civilized polished people, and superior to them in the arts of life ; the Irish looked upon them as their mortal enemies, who had invaded their country without any just cause of hostility ; who had plundered them in every way of their effects, deprived them of their estates and liberties, and whom it was reasonable to oppose by skill and force whenever they had an opportunity, that they might be restored to their own posses- sions.”* The ancient Homans succeeded in reconciling many of their conquered provinces to their yoke, but this was effected by con- summate statesmanship and generous treatment. Ko such means were used to reconcile Ireland to English rule. There was, indeed, clever statesmanship, but it was of a tyrannical and persecuting kind, and lacked not only generosity, but the most ordinary justice and fair play. One race despised and trampled on the other, whilst that other sprang up into armed resistance whenever it had an opportunity, and not unfrequently without an opportunity, or reasonable hope of success. -To the English the natives were always the “ Irish enemy,” and hence there was not, and could not be a real fusion of the two races.f The English Pale represented the English Nation in Ireland, and the attempts to enlarge the Pale, which were almost continuous, were to the Irish mind a new invasion — a new confiscation. The Palesmen, to be sure, sometimes intermarried with the natives, and even made treaties with them to resist the oppressions of the English, which now and then were inflicted even on the people of the Pale, but the Palesman never ceased to be heart and soul an Englishman. The plantation of Ulster, so vast in extent and so effectively done, together with James’s known determination to confiscate and plant the whole nation on the same model, must have convinced the Irish of the necessity of making a supreme * Warner's History of the Rebellion and Civil War in Ireland^ 2ad Ed, 4to, p. 9. t The Irish were reputed “ Aliens and Enemies ” by the English, and were denied the right of bringing actions in any of the English Courts in Ireland for trespasses of their lands, or for assaults or batteries to their persons. It was answer enough to such action that the plaintiff was an Irishman, unless he could produce a special charter giving him the rights of an Englishman. If an Englishman was indicted for manslaughter, and the man slain was an Irishman, he pleaded that the deceased was of the Irish Nation, and it was, therefore, no felony to kill him. For this, however, there was a fine of “ five marks to the King or Lord of the manor,” “ mostly they killed us for nothing." Crom- wellian Settlement^ 2nd Ed. p. 21. 102 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH effort for life and land, unless they were craven enough to submit to be annihilated without a struggle. !Next to this feeling, or rather intimately united with it, was the firm resolve to keep their faith at all sacrifices. In fact, fighting for their country and fighting for their religion got blended into one sentiment in the Irish mind, which sentiment is not in- aptly expressed by the phrase so trite amongst us : — “ For Faith and Fatherland.” That attachment to their faith was the chief, if not the sole cause of the war of 1641 cannot for a moment be doubted. Even Dr. Leland, a fellow of Trinity College, more than a hundred years ago acknowledges this. “ To the influence of national prejudices and grievances,” he writes, “ in estranging the people from English government, we are to add the powerful operation of religious principles and prepossessions. Far the greater number of inhabitants were obstinately devoted to popery, provoked and mortified by the penal statutes of Elizabeth, and impatient of the odious disqualifications imposed upon them.”^ Thus this protestant Doctor of Divinity, in one of the most pro- testant universities ever founded, admits, although with some reluctance, the attachment of the Irish people to their religion. Warner, the Protestant historian of the war of 1641, substan- tially expresses the* same view, when he says that “ an inten- tion to restore the free and unlimited exercise of their religion was one great cause of this rebellion ; and to say the truth they had never ceased, from the time of the Deformation, to encroach on the toleration that was allowed them, but by plots, conspira- cies and insurrections had been struggling against the Protestant religion, and labouring to overthrow it.”t The defence of the Catholic religion is always put prominently forward by the Irish Catholics as the chief cause and justification of the rising of 1641. In the contents of Lord Gormanston’s cabinet, captured at Lord Fingal’s, in the county of Cavan, 17th April, 1643, we find the speech of Edward Dowdal, of Monkstown, to the gentlemen under arms in Meath, in which he assigns the causes of the war to be — “ 1st, For a free exercise of fioman Catholic Deligion ; 2nd, Destoration of H.M’s. (His Majesty’s) Prerogative invaded by the English ; 3rd, Independancy of this country, oppressed by the parliament of England.”:!: In “ the true demands of the Rebells in Ireland, sent into England by Sir Phelim O’Neil, their general,” the free exercise of the Catholic Religion is claimed in the first place: “This state’’ [meaning the Irish Government], says that * History of Ireland, vol. III., p. 89. 4to Ed. + History of the Rebellion and Civil War in Ireland, p. 11, 4to Ed. % The Carte M8S. in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.” By C. W. Russell, D.D. and J. P. Prendergast, Barrister at Law, Appendix A, p. 195. IN IRELAND. loa document, “ assembled for the most part of English, and them of the Irish nation joyned as members thereof with them, being altogether disaffected to our religion, have endeavoured, what in them lay, to take from us our liberties and lawes formerly enacted by Parliament, with the consent of several Princes and Parliaments in England ; whereby we have used and exercised our religion according to the due rites and holy and necessary cere- monies thereof, which to defend and preserve, being now ready to fall to decay, and bee brought to destruction ; we have been forced to betake ourselves to arms, to defend our religion and liberty ; and if the same be againe restored, and our religion tolerated, we shall willingly lay down our arms.” The conditions are then set forth, the chief of which are, a demand for the free exercise of the Catholic religion and for free Catholic educa- tion.* But perhaps the most important declaration made on the subject is contained in the Remonstrance of the Catholics of Ireland delivered to the King’s Commissioners at Trim, in 161:2. In that weighty document the question of religion gets the first place ; it opens with these words : — ‘‘ Most gracious Sovereign, we, your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Catholics of your Highness’s kingdom of Ireland, being necessitated to take arms for the 'preservation of oar religion^ the maintenance of your Majesty’s rights and prerogatives, the natural and just defence of our lives and estates, and the liberties of our country,” &c.t And the first article of the Remonstrance runs thus : — ** Imprimis. The Catholiques of this Kingdom whom no reward could invite, no persecution could inforce to forsake that religion professed by them and their ancestors for thirteen hundred years or thereabouts, are, since the second year of the reigne of Queene Elizabeth, made incapable of places of honour in Church or Commonwealth, their nobles become contemptible, their gentry debarred from learning in Universities or public schools within this Kingdom, their younger brothers put by all manner of employ- ment in their native country, and necessitated (to their great discomfort and impoverishment of the land) to seeke education and fortune abroad, misfortunes made incident to the said Catho- liques of Ireland only (their numbers, qualitie, and loyalty con- sidered) of all the nations of Christendome.” * “ The true demands of the rebells in Ireland. Declaring the cause of their taking up arms. Sent into England by Sir Phelim O’Neale, their generall ; to the Honourable and High Court of Parliament. Ulster, February 10, 164^. Aphorismical Discovery or Contemporary History of the Affairs of Ireland from 1641 1652, vol. 1, p. 393. t The Remonstrance of the Catholics of Ireland, delivered to His Majesty’s Commissioners at Trim, 17th March, 1642. It is, perhaps, not unworthy of remark, that this Remonstrance was delivered on St. Patrick’s day. 104 THE BATTLE OF TKR FAITH The attitude of the Puritans in England and Scotland, especially in Scotland, alarmed the Irish Catholics ; for although the Puritans hated monarchy and episcopacy with genuine hatred, they hated popery to fanatical frenzy, and the most alarming accounts reached this country of their in- tention to make a descent upon our shores and demolish all the Popish idolaters they could lay hands on. This is put forward by the Northern Catholics in the following words : — “ It was plotted and resolved by the Puritans of England, Scotland, and Ireland, to extinguish quite the Catholic religion, and the professors and maintainors thereof, out of all the kingdoms ; and to put all Catholics of this realm to the sword that would not conform themselves to the Protestant religion.’^^ And, Dr. Anderson, in his Poyal Genealogies, says, “that the native Irish being well informed, as they thought (in 1641), that they now must either turn Protestants or depart the kingdom, or be hanged at their ov/n doors ; they betook to arms in their own defence, especially in Ulster, where the six counties had been forfeited.”*|' The Puritans were bold, en- thusiastic fanatics, who believed they could not render a more acceptable honour to God than to take the life of a Popish idolater, especially if he were a priest. It is not therefore surprising that the Catholics were terrified as the Puritans seized every opportunity to threaten and denounce them.f They brought the toleration of Papists into every charge made against the King and his ministers ; even in their impeach- ment of Strafford (our old acquaintance, black Tom Wentworth), one of the articles is that he had levied an army of Irish Papists to enslave the kingdom ; Strafford being, in point of fact, no friend to the Catholics at all; whom he robbed, as we know, wholesale. Among the causes, given in the Trim Kemonstrance for the rising of 1641, is the activity of the English parliament in prosecuting and punishing the Catholics. This complaint was was well founded. The Puritans ruled in the English House of Commons, and whilst, like the Scots, they were never done proclaiming that everything they did was in the cause of re- *“ The heads of the causes which moved the Northern Irish and Catholics of Ireland to take arms. Anno 1641.” Desiderata Cur. Hib. Vol. 2, p. 78. Curry, Vol. 2, App. p. 2^11. ' \Royal Genealogies, p. 786. ^''^Vhen it was proposed to solicit assistance from the Lutheran princes of Germany, and the Catholic kings of France and Spain, the Puritans replied that the Lutherans were heretics, the Catholics idolaters, and to have recourse to either would be to refuse the protection of God, and lean to the broken reed of Aegypt.” Bailhe (quoted by Lingard), vol. xii. p. 214. IN IKE LAND. 105 ligious liberty, it is but too evident that they only sought un- limited licence for themselves and their views, and were most intolerant to the other religious bodies, amongst which their greatest aversion, their real hete noire, was Popery. At this time the King published a Proclamation against Recusants ; a Committee of the House was appointed to examine it, and they reported that it was quite insufficient for its purpose, on which the House ordered the general of the army to dismiss all the officers who were Papists, and further petitioned the King to deprive all Catholic governors of their places ; whilst the justices of the peace were ordered to prosecute Recusants with all the rigour of the law, and a bill was iDrought into the House for disarming all the Papists in the kingdom.'* *The Scotch Puritans were commonly called Covenanters, on account of having signed the two Covenants, namely, the National Covenant, which had reference to Scotland only, and the Solemn League and Covenant, which they entered into with the English Parliament to strengthen themselves, and with the hope of abolishing Episcopacy in England as well as in Scotland. The earlier of the two was the National Covenant, which bound all who subscribed it, “ to spare nothing which might save their religion.” In the Solemn League and Covenant the subscribers say, “ we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extii'i^ation of popery, prelacy, super- stition, heresy, &c.” Having broken away from all authority themselves, it is curious to observe what power and authority they at once laid claim to, amounting, it would seem, to that infallibility which they so fiercely denounced as a Catholic dogma. I here give two or three illustrations: — “Kings,” they say, “ no less than the rest, must obey and yield to the authority of the ecclesiasti- cal magistrate.” Ecclesiastical Discipline, p. 142. And the well known Cartwright says, “that Princes must remember to subject themselves to the church, and to submit their sceptres and throw down their crowns before the church ; yea, to lick the dust otf the feet of the church.” T. Cartwright, p. 645. Buchanan held that ministers “ may excommunicate princes, and they being by excommunication cast into hell are not worthy to enjoy any life upon earth.” De Jure regis apud Scotos, p. 70. The devotions of the Puritans were of a most wonderful kind. “ Their prayers and sermons,” says Hume, “were no other than rhapsodies of unin- telligible jargon, which was wonderfully adapted to the ignorant fanaticism that then prevailed in all parts of the nation.” History of England, Vol. 7, p. 179. 8vo. Ed. 1759. The most illiterate people were the most favourite preachers among them. “ All learning was then cried down,” says Dr. K. South, “ so that with them the best preachers were such as could not read, and the best divines such as could not write.” Sermons, Vol. 3, p. 500. Their familiar manner with re- gard to the Almighty was often very revolting. “ Gather upon God,” said Mr. R. Harris, “and hold him to it as Jacob did; pressing him with his pre- cepts, with his promises, with his hand, with his seal, with his oath,” &c. Fast Sermon before the Commons, May 25, 1642, p. 18. When they got inspired they preached so long that they tired everybody. The sexton of one of their churches once said to a long-winded preacher, “ Pray, sir, be pleased when you have done to leave the key under the door,” and so he departed. After this hint the minister soon wound up. 100 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH But if the threats of the Puritaus alarmed the Irish Catho- lics, the success of the same Puritans against the King gave them encouragement, and it has been asserted, with a good show of truth, that the Catholics were quickened into action by the example set them by the Scots, and the favourable terms which the King was constrained to grant them. He, aided by Laud, did his best to force Episcopalianism upon Scotland ; but the moment the liturgy which was prepared by English bishops for the Scotch Church was published, the opposition to it became intense and universal, and the pulpits rang with denunciations of the men who sought ‘‘to gag the Spirit of God, and to depose Christ from his throne, by betraying to the civil magistrates the authority of the Kirk.” When the bishop and dean of Edinburgh appeared in the High Church to hold a Protestant Episcopalian Service, they were assailed with hisses and groans and the most offensive epithets, chiefly by women, the men prudently keeping in the back ground. Stools and big clasped bibles were flung at their heads, and the service could be proceeded with only under the protection of the magistrates. The country was stirred to its centre, and the sermons and extempore prayers of the ministers became more excited and enthusiastic. The National Covenant was pre- pared, and in a solemn service in the church of the Grey Friars, the vast congregation which crowded it, after a speech from Lord Loudon, rose en masse, and with arms outstretched to heaven swore to its contents. Charles was alarmed, and proceeded to offer considerable concessions, but he was late, and so he and his Scotch subjects prepared to settle their dif- ferences on the battle field. The Scots raised an army in the beginning of 1639, and Leslie was called home to become their The claim of the Puritans to personal inspiration and prophecy is well known. A certain Mr. George Swathe, a minister in Suffolk, thus prophesied when the King and Parliament were at war : — “ 0 my good Lord God, I praise Thee for discovering, the last week, in the day time, a vision that there were two great armies about York, one of the malignant party about the king ; the other party, parliament and professors, and the better side should have help from heaven I praise Thee for discovering this victory, at the instant of time it was done, to my wife,” &c. Dr. South is responsible for relating the following piece of blasphemy : A noted independent divine, he says, declared, when Oliver Cromwell w'aa sick, that “ God revealed to him that he should recover and live thirty years longer ; for, that God had raised him up for a w'ork which could not be done in a less time ; but Oliver’s death being published two days after, the said divine, publicly in his prayers expostulated with God regarding the defeat of his prophecy, in these words : — Thou hast lied unto us, yea, thou hast lied unto US.” Sermons, Vol, 1. Serm. 3. p. 102. But in Oxford Ed. of 1823, Vol. 1, p. 64, this blasphemy is given by other authorities, although not in precisely the same words. IN^ IRELAND. 107 general. He, at the head of a thousand musketeers, com- menced the campaign by surprising and taking the Castle of Edinburgh. There was a temporary peace made by the King with the Scots, but the warlike preparations were proceeded with on both sides. Charles raised an army of twenty thou- sand men, and Leslie called for every fourth man in Scotland, whilst the ministers who were in his camp sent written ex- hortations throughout the country. One of these called on every true Scot, in the name of God, to hasten to the aid of his countrymen, to extort a reasonable peace from the King, or “ to seek in battle their common enemies, the prelates and papists of England.'’ Another denounced the curse of Meroz against all who refused to come to the help of the Lord ; and a third, in “ bitter and sarcastic language, summoned the loiterers to attend the burial of the saints, whom they had abandoned to the swords of the idolaters.”* Ultimately the Scots had the best of it, and having crossed the Tyne, they became masters of the two northern counties of England, Durham and Northumberland. Of course they required supplies. The saints were scrupulous at first, and deemed it unlawful to plunder any but the idolatrous papists ; those scruples were soon overcome, and they not only confiscated all the property of the Catholics, with the tithes and rents of the clergy, but they seized coal and forage at discretion, and levied a weekly contribution of £5,600 off the two counties. These supplies, after a time began to fail, and they boldly demanded a subsidy of £40,000 a month from the King’s com- missioners, as long as they abstained from acts of hostility ; but they consented to come down to the old £5,600 a week, provided it was guaranteed to them, which was accordingly done. After the humiliation of seeing two of his English counties occupied by the Scots, and after being worsted in the field, and fearing to risk the fortune of war any further, Charles had to condescend to accredit Commissioners to treat with the Covenanters at Ripon. In imitating the Scots, if they did imitate them, the Irish seem not to have correctly realised their position, for the Scots had a vast body of co-religionists in England, and the Commons of England at their back ; whilst the Irish Catholics, who could hope for nothing from the King, had to contend with a puritan parliament in England, and a powerful puritan faction at home, who held in their hands the whole government of the country. * See Lingard, vol. VII. p. 216. 108 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH CHAPTEE X. THE WAR OF ’41 CONTINUED. It does cot appear that the rising of 1641 was preceded hy any very long or elaborate preparations; but there can be no doubt that the Irish Catholics at home and abroad cherished the hope of, one time or another, shaking off the tyranny which robbed them of their lands, and for a long period had, with con- summate skill, been labouring to uproot their religion. They were awaiting their opportunity, and, in some sense, resembled a heap of dry fuel which only requires a spark to make it burst into a conflagration. Numbers of Irish and the descendants of Irish — the very best blood of the Milesian race — eked out a precarious existence as landless, homeless wanderers abroad, whilst those at home had, year after year, to endure new confiscations, and bear newly-forged chains, for conscience sake. The laws did not permit the Irish Catholics to be educated at home, unless they consented to be brought up as protestants ; whilst under severe penalties, they were forbidden to go abroad for education, lest they should be trained and strengthened in the faith of their ancestors. Still some managed to reach seminaries on the Con- tinent, in w^hich it not unfrequently happened that there were Irish priests as professors, and the descendants of Irish exiles as students. Although, like the Israelites when in exile, they were not in the humour to sing the songs of their land, they were in the right temper to discuss its wrongs, weep over its afflictions, and concoct plans for redeeming it from bondage.* Amongst the Irish youths who succeeded in going abroad for education was Roger O'Moore, the lineal descendant of the Chiefs of Leix. In Spain he met the son of Hugh O’Neill, Earl of Tyrone, who had obtained the colonelcy of a regiment in that country. It cannot for a moment be doubted that two such men would enter earnestly into the affairs of Ireland, and weigh the prospects of * “ Upon the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept, when we remembered Sion : on the willows in the midst thereof we bung up our instruments. For they that led us into captivity required of us the words of songs. And they that carried us away said : Sing ye to us a hymn of the songs of Sion. How shall we sing the song of the Lord in a strange land ? If I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten.” Fs. cxxxvi. vv. 1, et seq. IN IRELAND. 109 being able to strike a blow for her ; an opinion which is strengthened by the fact that, as far as is known, Eoger O’Moore, on his return, was the first who began to sound the dispositions of leading Catholics as to the feasibility of rising up in armed force to assert their rights. It may be fairly assumed, too, that the heir of the great House of O’Neill undertook on his side to obtain as much support as he could from the Spanish govern- ment. O’Moore possessed all the qualities necessary to bend others to his views. He was the accepted representative of a great House, which was always true to Ireland ; he was a man of fine presence, and noble bearing, yet amiable and condescending; he was highly educated, and above all, he was enthusiastic in the cause he had taken in hand. He, by degrees, found friends whom he could trust, and who trusted him. One of the first, if not the very first, of these was his kinsman Richard Plunket, son of that Sir Richard Plunket, who was a distinguished leader of the opposition in Parliament during Chichester’s government. Lord Maguire, Baron of Inniskillin, soon came into his views. Hugh Oge M‘Mahon, Philip O’Reilly, and Torlogh O’Neill, brother of Sir Phelim, were sounded by O’Moore, and won over to the project. Later on. Sir Phelim O’Neill himself joined O’ Moore ; and as Sir Phelim was then the most considerable man of his name in Ulster, his acquisition was considered very important by O’Moore and his party. The first meeting on the subject of the Rising appears to have taken place in the winter or spring of 1640. Lord Maguire in his “ Relation,” says that being in Dublin in Candlemas Term, 1640, Roger O’Moore wrote to him asking him for an interview, which, after some unavoidable delays, he gave him. O’Moore opened the business to him and got his consent to take part in it. Next day, Philip O’Reilly and Lord Maguire dined with O’Moore at his lodgings, and after dinner Torlogh O’Neill and Hugh M‘Mahon joined them. These five constituted, as far as Lord Maguire knew, the first meeting on the subject. To the four gentlemen named above O’Moore developed his hopes and plans, which went to show, that assistance could be had from abroad ; that the Palesmen would be either neutral or give them assist- ance ; that the danger to the Catholics from the Puritans was imminent and alarming ; and that considering the King’s differ- ences and difiiculties with the Puritans, the time was opportune for the Catholics to rise in defence of their religion and their liberties. He alleged as a justification for this, the wholesale robberies inflicted upon them by repeated confiscations, and the present urgent necessity of defending their religion. 110 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH The main reliance for assistance from abroad rested on Colonel Don John O’Neill, as the Spaniards called him. He was acknowledged on the Continent as Earl of Tyrone, and had great influence with Philip the lY. of Spain, and no less at the Court of Pome. He was advanced to the dignity of Major General by Philip, Not long after O’Moore had opened the business to Lord Maguire, there landed in Ireland one Neill O’Neill, who had been sent from Spain by the Earl of Tyrone “ to speak with the gentry of his name and kindred, to let them know that he had treated with Cardinal Richelieu for obtaining succour to come for Ireland, and that he prevailed with the Cardinal, so that he was to have arms, ammunition, and money from him on demand to come for Ireland, and that he only expected [awaited] a convenient time to come away ; and to desire them to be in readiness, and to procure all others whom they could to be so likewise.”* But Don John O’Neill, Earl of Tyrone, was not spared to come to Ireland or to strike a blow for her, for he fell in action fighting for his Catholic Majesty against his rebellious subjects in Cataluna.f The first report of the Earl’s death which reached Ireland was not believed. The messenger who had come from him was sent back with certain information as to the intentions and arrangements of O’Moore and the rest, but as the reported death of the Earl had reached Ireland before his departure, he was ordered, should it prove true, not to go back to Spain, but to go into the Low Countries to Colonel Owen O’Neill, and to acquaint him with the Earl’s commission. “But presently after his departure, the certainty of the Earl’s death was known, and on further resolution it was agreed that an express messenger should be sent to the Colonel, to make all the resolu- tions known to him, and to return speedily with an answer. * “The Relation of the Lord Maguire, written with his own hand in the Tower, and delivered by him to Sir John Conyers, then Lieutenant, to present to the Lords in Parliament.” Borlase, p. 31. Contemporary History of A fairs in Ireland, 1641-1652, Vol. L, p. 501 et seq. The “Relation” of the Lord Maguire has a good deal of internal evidence in favour of its veracity, and many of its statements are supported by other and independent testimony ; but “ in estimating the value of the .... depositions purporting to have been made by persons in durance, it is to be remembered that we have respectable contemporary attestations, addressed to Charles I., that in 1641-2, prisoners in Ireland were examined under the Governmental authority — some by menace, others by torture, and most were necessitated to subscribe to what the exami- nators pleased to insert.” Preface to History of Affairs in Ireland, d:c., Vol. 1, p. xvi. By John T. Gilbert, F.S.A., M.R.I.A, t Tyrconnell was also killed in this campaign. Tyrone left one child, a son named Hugh, aged 9 years. History of A fairs, . 387 . IN IRELAND. 279 such great difficulties [as to make it necessary]* they ought to conclude a truce with this self-same Baron Inchiquin who now proposed it of his own accord, and at the same time turning over to the Boyal cause, a fact which he had proved by this unmistak- able sign, — that he imprisoned some of his principal officers, because they would not attach themselves to the side of his Majesty.’’ In a second letter the Nuncio explains that in his communication of the 1st of March, to which reference was made, he did not favour either a truce or armistice with the Scots or Inchiquin, or any others. What he meant was that an accommo- dation might be come to ; and his reason for the distinction was, that in a truce things must stand during its continuance as they stood when it was made, but that an arrangement or accommo- dation could not be concluded, unless the contracting parties gained some advantage from it, and that as many members of the Supreme Council could testify, such an arrangement or accommo- dation was always favoured and wished for by him, when any advantage was to be gained, but that he was against approving of any truce or cessation whatever.f Other points are discussed in the letters, but the above are the principal. In those letters there is a good deal of fencing and special pleading, but the motives of both parties are plain enough; the Supreme Council, now completely in Ormonde’s interest, were determined to close with Inchiquin in order to make a combi- nation strong enough to crush the Nuncio and O’Neill; whilst the Nuncio, seeing clearly through their design, endeavoured to frustrate it, but in this he failed, because the Supreme Council took care to have the truce so nearly ratified before his arrival in Kilkenny, that it could not be set aside or altered. ^ The Nuncio finding all his efforts to prevent the truce with Inchiquin to be fruitless, left Kilkenny privately in the beginning of May, and proceeded to O’Neill, who was then at Maryborough, On the 27th of that month, he published an excommunication against all who would accept the truce. He removed from Maryborough to Athlone, whence on the I3th of June he wrote to Cardinal Panzirolo as follows : — “ The Council, bent on mis- * “Quod si res nostra tautis essent in angustiis, inducias faciendas esse cum hoc ipso Barone de Inchiquin.” t For this correspondence, see Billings' Vindicice, from p. 60 to p. 86. t “ I came to Kilkenny, being every day solicited to do so by the Supreme Council, that I might be present at the conclusion of the truce with Inchiquin, of which I have already written ; but found that, as usual, these gentleineu had all but completed it, although they had written they should do nothing without me.” Nuncio’s Letter to Card. Panzirolo, from Kilkenny, 3rd May, 1648. — Embassy in Ireland, p. 381. 280 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH chief, have finally concluded the truce with Inchiquin, upon much worse conditions than when the clergy protested against it ; and at the same time Preston, at the head of 8,000 infantry, proposed to join Inchiquin and Taaffeto the detriment of O’Neill. Upon this I have published the strictest form of excommunication against him, and by the first opportunity to Rome, I shall send all the necessary documents relating to the subject, and especially my reasons for coming to this determination, rather than allow afi’airs to take their course. Hell is working with all its powers — some bishops and many monks have declared against me, chiefly amongst the Jesuits, who insist that the censure as resting on temporal affairs is null and void, and that it can be suspended by an appeal made by the Council ; although this power of sus- pension is not admitted by me ; some even go so far as to say, that by the English law I have no authority to exercise juris- diction.”"^ On the 81st of May the Supreme Council appealed, in form, against the excommunication, although the power of appeal from it was specially excluded by the Nuncio. A copy of this appeal was delivered to him at Kilcolgan on the 5th of June, to which he replied on the same day, giving six months for the prosecution of the appeal, but refusing to suspend the effects of the excommuni- cation in the meantime.*!* The bishops and the rest of the clergy were divided about the Nuncio’s power of pronouncing an excommunication under the circumstances in which he did so. The Council, of course, followed the opinion of those who adhered to them, in disregarding the excommunication, and in appealing against it. The truce between Inchiquin and the Supreme Council having been concluded, the combination against the Nuncio and O’Neill was complete. Taaffe and Clanrickard prepared an expedition against them, to aid which Inchiquin despatched five hundred horse under the command of one Major Doily.J On receiving this reinforcement Preston marched with all expedition towards Kilcolgan, the residence of Terence Coghlan, where the Nuncio was known to be then staying, but on this occasion as on many others, he arrived too late, and “ was informed that My Lord Nuncio last night in a disguised manner, went unto the Shannon, where his lordship was expected with a boat and a dozen mus- ketiers to ferie and guard him to Athlon e, from Captain Gawley, and by the appointment of the Catholicke General, to prevent * Letter to Cardinal Panzirolo . — Embassy in Ireland, p. 393. t Aphor. Discovery, Vol. I., p. 199. t Carte says 61 0. IN IRELAND. 281 such a danger, as previdinge (foreseeing) the like might happen.”* After his disappointment at Kilcolgan, Preston went towards Athlone, having sent a party of horse before him “ with com- mands (says the Author of the Aphorismical Discovery) ^ to use all Ulstermen, keraghts, and others, whether in arms or noe, that they meet, with fire and sword, noe qualitie or sex exempted.” There were at the time keraghts and sutlers going towards Athlone, where O’JN^eill was, with cows and other provisions, but Preston’s horse having got between them and O’Neill’s camp, seized all the supplies they carried, killing many of them, not spar- ing age or sex. “ This,” says the author quoted above, with bitter scorn,“ was the first field that Preston ever gott [won] in Ireland.”t Preston pitched his camp within a mile or two of O’Neill, in the vicinity of Athlone, where many skirmishes occurred between their troops, but there was no regular engagement. After about three weeks, O’Neill retired from Athlone to Jamestown, for want of provisions, leaving a garrison under Theobald M. Magauley, to defend the place. It was here, on the 28th of June, 1648, that 0’Neill,in conjunction with his officers, published his Declara- tion against the Cessation with Inchiquin. It is a remarkable document, and quite worthy of the Catholic General. He begins it by flinging aside with disdain the calumny so often uttered against him that he was w^anting in loyalty to his sovereign ; but whilst he does so, he cannot forget that he is bound by the Oath of Association. ‘'We have,” he says, “by free and full consent, without any reluctancy, in the view of the world, taken the Oath of Association appointed by universall votes to be taken by all the Confederate Catholics of Ireland, wherein we manifest our religion towards God, and secure our loyaltie towards our sovereigne. This oath we have as frequently and as freely iterated as any of the rest of our fellow-Confederates in this kingdom. We have also avowed that solemn protestation made by the Catholick Clergie of the same Confederacy, protesting to give unto Caesar what is due to Caesar, and to God what is due to God ; as we resolve never to violate this oath and protesta- tion, so do we resolve never to adhere, unto any that have or shall endeavour to suppress the one or the other. Such as boast most of loyaltie, but are most conscious of disloyaltie, have by this Cessation given unto the king’s sworn enemie two intire Counties in Munster, which were in the possession of the Con- federate Catholics, without receiving any assurance of his loyaltie * Aphor. Discovery, Vol. I., p. 209. See also Borlase, p. 245. t Ibid., Vol. I., ]»p. 209, 228. 282 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH or restitution of the same Counties after the expiration of the Cessation.”^ O’JN'eill accuses the Confederation of adhering to Ormonde, notwithstanding his treachery in delivering to the Parliament (the king’s greatest enemies), “ the Castles of Dublin, Drogheda, Trim, Dundalke, and all other garrisons remaining in his quarters.” . . . . “ Yet those men would needs be held loyall subjects, and all others who oppose their sinister practices (though tWeunto bound by oath) must be held disloyal.” . . ‘‘Weprovoake [challenge] the whole world to charge us with the least act of disloyaltie committed since these commotions, unless the depraved judgments of the disloyall (to cloake the turpitude of their own crimes) will censure it disloyaltie in us to defend with Christian resolution the freedome of our religion, the prerogatives of our Sovereigne, and liberty of our free-born nation, whereunto by oath we are obliged. Unto the perfect observance of this oath and protestation, the See Apostolick by its Apostolick Missions frequently exhorted us, and to second our endeavours therein hath sent unto the Catholick Confederates frequent subsidies. So far is it from truth that either His Holi- ness or W9 are against the allegiance due by subjects unto their Soveraigne Unto those who truly and really adhere unto His Majestie (without prejudicing our religion) we do and shall adhere .... Unto others who only counterfeit such adherence to avoid the forces of the Confederate Catholicks, we may not adhere. .... We conjure all the Confederate Catholicks together, with those faithful subjects (of what religion sover) that unfeignedly adhere to his Majestie, to join with us against all Parliamentary rebells and all factionists who (for their own ends) complie with them, to the violation of their oath, prejudice of our Sovereigne, and desire of the distressed nation. Signed by the General and Commander at Athlone, 17 June, 1648 [old style.] “Owen O’Neill, Owen Maguire, Con O’Neill, Henry O’Neill, Lisagh O’More, Bryan O’Neill, Philip O’Beilly, James McDon- nell, Arthur Fox, Myles MacSwiney, Phelim [MacTuhill] O’Neill, Owen 0’Dogharty.”t Having remained in Athlone some time, the Nuncio proceeded to Galway, where he must have arrived in the last days of June, or first of July, as he wrote from that city to Cardinal Panzirolo on the 2nd of the latter month. In this letter he says : — “ The plot to restore the former state of affairs was well laid, and upon * Aphorismical Discovery, Vol. I., p. 741. t The above signatures do not appear in the copy in the Cart^e Papers, and are taken from the Hibernia Dominicana, Aj^kor. Disc., pp. 741, 2 and 3, Vol. I. IN IRELAND. 283 the declaration of the bishops against the truce, the Council, in spite of promises to the contrary, concluded their iniquitous stipulations, placed Preston at the head of a hastily raised army, and sent him against General Owen O’Neill, the supporter of the clergy. I was in despair, believing that I must either fly the kingdom, or witness the overthrow of the Catholic army, the desolation of the Church, and the triumph of the last year’s re- jected peace. No remedy was to be found for these evils, and at last I took courage to publish an interdict against all who should acknowledge or favour the truce, or unite with the heretics against those who opposed it.”* The Mayor of Galway was, according to Carte, anxious to proclaim the Cessation, but was prevented by the people. The Nuncio called a Synod to meet at Galway on the 15th of August, but the Supreme Council forbade the clergy to proceed to that city, and commanded all civil and military officers to stop their passage thither. By this means the assembling of a Synod was prevented. The Nuncio, moreover, was besieged in Galway by Clanrickard, who had been made commander of the Confederate forces in Connaught, and who beleaguered Galway so closely that he effectually prevented the sending of provisions into the city either by land or water, and thus reduced the inhabitants to such a state that they were forced to proclaim the Cessation, pay a considerable sum of money, and renounce the Nuncio and his adherents.! The Supreme Council (Ormondites), having, as Carte says, laid their plans better than on former occasions, were now in the ascendant, and so were able to pursue the course they had marked out for themselves. On the 30th of September they publicly proclaimed O’Neill a rebel and a traitor, J and proceeded to draw up a series of charges against the Nuncio, accusing him of “ manifold oppressions, transcendent crimes, and capital offences, which he had been continually for three years past acting within the kingdom, to the unspeakable detriment of their religion, the ruin of the nation, and the dishonour of the See of Rome, which suffered much by his actions and proceedings in the Nunciature.” They further warned him to prepare for his journey to Rome, in order to defend himself against the charges they were about to make against him, and to do so under the penalty which might ensue by the laws of God and Nations; and further, that he was not by himself, or his adherents. * Embassy in Ireland, p. 401. t Carte, Vol. II., pp. 35*6. j Aphorism. Discovery, Vol. I., pp. 747 and 749. 284 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH directly or indirectly to intermeddle in any of the affairs of the kingdom of Ireland.”* Notwithstanding this insulting message, the Nuncio remained some months in Galway, in the hope that affairs might take some favourable turn, hut unfortunately they did not, so on the 23rd of February, 1649, he went on board the S. Pietro, and set sail from Ireland on the 2nd of March, after having been three years and four months in this country.f When Rinuccini, Prince and Archbishop of Fermo, was accre- dited to the Irish Catholics as Nuncio, he did not, and of course could not, realize the difficulties of the task imposed upon him. At that time there were about ten Catholics to one Protestant in this country, so the Nuncio naturally regarded it as a Catholic nation ; hut the Protestants, though so few in number, because they became possessors of the land by confiscation, and because they were sustained by the power of England, looked on them- selves as the nation, and regarded the Catholics, especially those of Irish race, as inferior beings and enemies, who had lost all claim to live on Irish soil, and were, therefore, to be got rid of as opportunity offered. With this state of things the Nuncio was, to some extent, acquainted ; but surely he could not have been prepared for the feelings and sympathies which influenced the conduct of the Irish Catholics of English descent. To be * Carte, Vol. IT., p. 43, and Vol. III., p. 585. Sir Richard Blake’s letter to the Nuncio, dated 19th October, 1648. Sir R. Blake was, at this time, Chair- man of the General Assembly. t Carte says he went on board the S. Pietro on the 22nd of February, but what seems to have happened is that he went on board early on the morning of the 23rd, which Carte calls the 22od. The date in the “ Confederation of Kil- kenny,” by Rev. C. P. Meehan, is January 23rd, but January is an evident misprint for February. See Carte, Vol. II., p. 56 ; Hibernica Dominicana, p. 687 ; Confederation of Kilkenny, p. 270. Ed. 1882. Although importuned by many to remain in Ireland, the Nuncio bad become so straitened for the means to support himself, that he became very anxious to take his departure. “ Being despoiled,” he writes, “of everything which I possessed, under various and unjust pretexts, I find it difficult to support myself.” He was necessitated to sell his frigate, the San Pietro^ to a merchant, with the condition that he was to have the right of a passage in her when leaving Ireland. His intention was to land in some port of Flanders, but the merchant was afraid to land at Ostende, on account of his difference with the Spanish agent. He feared the Parliamentary ships in the Channel, so he made for Havre-de-Grace, but en- countering contrary winds, he was obliged to cast anchor at a “miserable village of Normandy,” called St. Vasto. The people of Galway paid the Nuncio great respect at his departure. Writing to Cardinal Panzirolo, he says : — “Your Eminence cannot conceive the affection of the citizens of Galway at this crisis ; they ridiculed these attempts [to expel him by force], and showed such reverence for the Holy See as to be prepared to defend me by arms, if necessary. The triumph of my departure when I was accompanied to the ship by the tears and lamentations of the people was greater than when I disembarked three years ago .” — The Embassy in Ireland, passim. IN IRELAND. 285 sure they rose up and armed against the persecution inflicted upon them on account of their religion ; but they had another grievance which excited their anger quite as much as the first, which was, that the English Government began to regard and treat them in some degree as mere Irish, instead of looking on them as English residing in Ireland. The Catholics of English blood possessed the anti-Irish feeling almost as much as the Pro- testants ; although the identity of faith somewhat toned down their dislike and contempt for the natives. The Nuncio at first thought the battle was one of religion only, but by degrees he discovered his error, and found that the Catholic Generals and Catholic leaders of the Pale were more inclined to follow the apostate Ormonde than any who represented the true Catholic spirit of Ireland. The Nuncio, coming from Italy, and imbued with the ideas that prevailed there as well as in other Catholic nations, assumed as a matter of course, that what the Catholics of Ireland had a perfect right to, and what they took up arms to assert, was perfect equality — perfect freedom of religious worship ; whilst the protestants regarded it as nothing short of insolent audacity in them to think of putting forward any such claim, and in fact looked on the scantiest toleration as far too much to grant them. The Nuncio, besides, was no match for Ormonde in the diplomatic management of affairs, for which he was not to be blamed, as there was hardly any man of his time who could compete with the Marquis in patient, unceasing, and well con- trived political intriguing. We may call it statesmanship or anything else we please, but his power in that line cannot for a moment be denied — a power by which he not only kept the protestants well in hand, but filled the General Assembly and the Supreme Council with Catholics, ever ready to carry out his plans. The Catholic Generals whenever they fought against him or his known views were so often defeated, that they became suspected more of treachery than incompetence. Such being the situation of affairs, the Nuncio at last had nothing to sustain him but Owen Roe’s army, and his own power as a churchman. He is accused of having been too ready to employ excommuni- cations and interdicts. Perhaps so ; but be it remembered that it was only when those who bound themselves by oath never to lay down their arms until their religion was free, forgot their oath, nay, broke it, by making secret compacts with Ormonde, the worst enemy of the Catholic cause, that the Nuncio, as a last resort, had recourse to interdict and excommunication against the supporters of the truce with Inchiquin. It was an act which few would approve of for our time ; but the 286 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH actions of men must be judged by the times in which they lived, and the circumstances by which they were surrounded. Much odium has been cast upon the Nuncio on account of his opposition to the peace of '46, which was so highly extolled by the Ormondites. The peace of ’46, no doubt, offered some good concessions, but it was leavened with Ormonde’s usual duplicity. Surely, the full legal recognition of the Catholic religion was essential to the making'of any peace with Ormonde. It was to secure such recognition that the Catholics had armed. But in the peace of ’46 his Majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects were referred “ to his Majesty’s gracious favour, and further concessions.” There was no real recognition of them, although they were offered certain privileges. Besides, the Nuncio and those who acted with him were abundantly justified by the terms of the Oath of Association in rejecting the peace of ’46 f whilst neither the King nor Ormonde had the power of carrying out the conditions of the peace of ’46 or ’48-9, had either been accepted. Carte, one of the chief authorities on the war of 1641 is most unjust to the Nuncio, and what makes his injustice more wicked and dangerous is the air of impartiality which he assumes. Unfortunately some Catholic writers and many Catholic readers, deceived by those who had in their hands the making of the history of 1641 and following years, have formed an opinion of the N uncio quite too unfavourable and not at all deserved. Carte and his imitators can hardly see a blemish in Ormonde, whilst the mere fact of being opposed to him is, with them, a fault in all others. It may be that the Nuncio was too sanguine as to what could be done for the Catholic Church in Ireland. He was probably more impulsive, and certainly less astute than Ormonde ; but that he fulfilled his mission in Ireland most conscientiously, with no mean ability and with immense labour, will be evident to every historical student of the period. Success covers a multitude of faults. Had the Nuncio won, his very enemies would, it is more than probable, see high qualities, where they can now see nothing but faults and shortcomings. One duty is plain at any rate — those for whom he thought and fought and laboured so long ought to defend his memory from the unjust obloquy which has been sought to be cast upon it.f * See p. 166. See also the articles in full in Cox, Appendix xxiv.’ Also those of the Peace of ’48-9, ih. xliii. t The following short extracts Will show the spirit in which the historians of the War of 1641, wrote of the Nuncio ; — “ He had carried himself with the appearance of temper till the congregation IN IRELAND. 287 His enemies did not cease to calumniate the Nuncio after he had left Ireland. Borlase says that when he arrived in Home “ he had an ill reception of the Pope, who said to him Temerarie te gessisti.”* * This saying rests on the word of a certain friar O’Callaghan, said to have been a disappointed suitor to the Nuncio for the bishoprick of Cork, and is not sustained by facts. Again, Carte says “the Court of Home, though it was contrary to their maxims to fix a public mark of censure upon the con- duct of their ministers, disapproving of his [the Nuncio’s] conduct, sent him orders to make haste thither.”t For this statement Carte gives no authority whatever, and so far from the Pope having censured the Nuncio, he was most graciously received by the Holy Father, as appears from the following passage: — “In the meantime Innocent X. had been informed both by letters from the Nuncio himself, and also from the bishops and other persons of respectability in Ireland, of his negociations and continued struggle against the enemies of the Church, of Waterford ; but ever since that time his conduct had been a continued series of violent and unreasonable actions, arbitrary and obstinate measures, directed by ambitious views, and tending to the division of the Confederates, and the ruin of the kingdom.” — Carte’s Ormonde, fol. Ed., Vol. II., p. 34. [It was Ormonde who applied himself to divide the Confederates, in which, unfortunately, he was but too successful.] “When he had with less success than formerly issued his excommunication, the 27th of May, 1648, against all those who complied with the Cessation with the Lord Inchiquin, he was compelled in the end, after so much mischief done to the religion he was obliged to protect, in an obscure manner, to fly out of the kingdom, and coming to Rome,” &c. — Borlase’ s History of the Execrable Rebellion, d’c., Dublin Ed., 1763, p. 246. [It is highly amusing to find Borlase relating, with apparent regret, the mis- chief done by the Nuncio to the Catholic religion in Ireland.] When the Cessation was concluded with Inchiquin, “ the Nuncio,” says Leland, “ was enraged even to a degree of phrenzy. He fled secretly from Kil- kenny, and cast himself into the arms of his favourite, O’Neill, whom he conjured to march without delay against the prophane betrayers of the Church.” — History of Ireland, 4to Ed., p. 325. “ Because the impudent injustice and imprudence of the Nuncio, and the subjection of the people to his immoderate and imprudent humour and spirit was, in truth, the real fountain from whence this torrent of calamities flowed, which hath since overwhelmed that miserable nation, and because that exorbi- tant power of his was resolutely opposed by Catholics of the most eminent parts and interests,” &c. — Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion and Civil Wa7’S in Ireland. Dublin Ed., 1719-20, p. 61. * History of the Execrable Rebellion, p. 246. This expression of the Holy Father, charging Rinuccini with rashness, has been many times reproduced by his enemies. De Burgo could not be induced to believe it was uttered, for if it were, the members of his Order, he says, would have been there at once and without difficulty freed from the Anathema [meaning the Interdict] under which they suf- fered, which they were not. His words are ; — “ Si enim id verum esset, cito et haud difficiilt^r ab Anathemate isto liberarentur Nostrates, cujus tamen, contrarium ex mox narrandis clarebit.” — Hibernia Dominicana, p. 690. t Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. II., p. 56. 288 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH and received him with fraternal tenderness^ expressed his full satisfaction, and highly commended his prudence, zeal, and Apostolic self-denial. The Pope would have wished to retain him near himself as Pontifical preacher, but Pinuccini respect- fully refused the honour, alleging as an excuse his failing health which needed repose ; but in reality he desired to return to his See, and to assist in person in the pastoral care of his chosen flock, who longed no less to see again their beloved pastor.”* He had landed in Normandy before the middle of March, 1649, but did not arrive in Rome until the 8th of November of the same year, which shows there was no pressure put upon him to hasten his journey to the Eternal City, as Carte asserts. Before his departure from Ireland the General Assembly had prepared an appeal against the excommunication, which they despatched to Rome by Father John Roe, a discalced Carme- lite {unshod is Carte’s word), who arrived on the 16th of January, 1649. He was Provincial of his Order at the time. The Nuncio having been informed of this proceeding, sent his con- fessor, Father Joseph Arcamoni, a Theatine, and Father Richard O’Farrell, a Capuchin, to represent and defend him ; and he wrote to Cardinal Panzirolo, requesting him to await the arrival of those fathers before any investigation of the excommunication or appeal should be entered upon. He adds : — “ Since I wrote the above, I find that the Assembly have declared me a rebel against the Crown of England, and are determined to expel me the kingdom. I am quite ready to bear this, and esteem it a glory, although they have taken from me all that I have.”t The Nuncio’s representatives arrived in Rome not long after Father Rowe. On their arrival they besought the authorities to postpone the business until theNuncio himself would be in Rome, and up to December, 1649, nothing seems to have been done. This we learn from a letter attributed to Abbizzi, Secretary of the Congregation of Cardinals, who had charge of Irish affairs. That the appeal from the Ormonde party against the excom- munication failed to have any effect, we may infer from the fact that permission for its removal was not granted until the next pontificate, which was that of Alexander the YII., as is thus recorded by Sir James Ware in his annals : “ Anno 1665. In this year Pope Alexander the Seventh absolved the Irish from the excommunication of the Nuncio upon their doing penance.” * Memoir of Rinuccini by G. Aiazza, Librarian of the Rinuccini Library, prefixed to the Embassy in Ireland, p. x. t The Embassy in Ireland, p. 423, IN IRELAND. 289 CHAPTER XVI. Having concluded the accounts of the Nuncio’s connection with Irish affairs it is now necessary to go back a little. The Marquis of Ormonde left Ireland with the full intention of returning as soon as the course of events would make it prudent for him to do so. The retirement, or rather the retreat of the Nuncio from Kilkenny, the transformation of the Gfeneral Assembly into an Ormondite faction from being the Catholic Con- federation, the defection of Inchiquin from the Parliament and his truce with the Assembly, seemed to Ormonde’s mind to usher in a desirable time for resuminghis government in Ireland. On the 21st of September, 1648, the Queen dispatched Sir G. Hamilton from St. Germain’s to Havre with her final instructions to the Marquis, who had already arrived there and was awaiting them. Having received these, he set sail with the next favourable wind, accompanied by a retinue of about one hundred persons, amongst whom were the Earls of Roscommon and Castlehaven, and his brother, Richard Butler.* He arrived in Cork on the 29th of the same month ; whence he almost immediately pro- ceeded to the Castle of Carrick-on-Suir, in order to be nearer to Kilkenny, and thus be enabled to hurry on the Peace with the General Assembly, which had become of urgent necessity to the King’s interest. Carrick Castle belonged to Ormonde, but was then in Inchiquin’s possession, although within the Catholic quarters. Ormonde w^as received in Cork by Inchiquin’s Major- General, Inchiquin himself being engaged in an expedition against O’Neill. Inchiquin, in his letters to Ormonde inviting him to return to Ireland, was very pressing as to the necessity of bringing over money to pay his (Inchiquin’s) army. The lowest sum that would suffice, he said, was £6,000, but all that Ormonde could obtain from the Queen was 3,600 pistoles, a sum not much over £1,500 ;'[* and this was spent in his journey to Ireland, except a mere trifle ; so that, says Carte, he arrived at Cork with only thirty pistoles in his pocket. But he followed the advice given to him by Inchiquin, and pretended that he * The Nuncio in a letter to Cardinal Panzirolo, says Secretary Digby was of the party. t The pistole meant here, no doubt, was that containing eleven old French livres, being about equal to 8s. 6d. of our money. T 290 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH brought with him draughts on various merchants in different Irish cities, hoping that the time supposed to be necessary for getting them cashed, would be sufficient to enable him to raise money by other means. But the money to pay the army was not forthcoming within what they considered a reasonable time, so they became disorganized and mutinous. Alarmed at this state of things, Inchiquin sent for Ormonde. This was done, it was said, to pacify them ; but what Inchiquin clearly wanted was to bring Ormonde face to face with the army, and then and there obtain from him such a public promise as would satisfy officers and men. This was most necessary, for there was imminent danger of their breaking up altogether — some to go to Jones, others to join O’Neill. Ormonde had nothing substantial to offer, but luckily for him, at the critical moment a Mr. Fanshaw* landed with instructions and despatches from the Prince of Wales, and with assurances that the fleet was coming to those parts with a supply of ammunition and provisions for the army, and that the Prince himself was preparing to come to Ireland. This seemed to satisfy the troops, but their satisfaction was more apparent than real, for it was afterwards discovered that some of the officers had opened negociations with the Parliament, and had sent it certain propositions in the name of the Army of Munster. The plot was discovered in time to be crushed. Ormonde having remained twenty days at Garrick Castle, moved on to Kilkenny as soon as the preparations made for his reception were complete ; and it was from that city he had been obliged, much against his will, to go back to Cork to try to content Inchiquin’s soldiers. He and his friends had determined that his advent to Kilkenny should be a grand demonstration. He entered that city with regal splendour. Such members of the General Assembly as could be got together, with many of the gentry of the surrounding country, awaited his arrival, and when they had notice of his approach, they rode out a distance of some ten miles to meet him. After entering the city he was conducted to the Castle, which was formally handed over to him by the Mayor and Aldermen. Then he ascended a lofty throne, which had been erected for him, and when he had taken his seat he was requested by John Burke, Archbishop of Tuam,and Thomas Walsh, Archbishop of Cashel, in the name of those present, to resume the government of the kingdom, and to raise it from the wretched condition in which it then was.f To this * This was probably a piece of mismanagement on the part of Ormonde, t Archbishop Walsh appears to have been a good well-meaning prelate. He gained little by his reception of Ormonde. From a letter written by him in IN IRELAND. 291 request Ormonde gave, as lie well knew how to give, a benign, dignified assent. He declared the Confederation dissolved, and then formed a Council out of some of its members, amongst whom he named French, Bishop of Ferns, on the express condition that he would drop his title, and for the future sign himself Nicholas only.^ Ormonde proceeded at once to conclude a peace with the General Assembly, but it was retarded by his reluctance to yield to all their demands, although they were very moderate. He also fell sick, and his illness, which lasted some weeks, was a further cause of delay. The Marquis had a knack of falling sick, when he thought there was anything to be gained by delay. His illness on this occasion was most opportune, for during it, events occurred in England which made all parties in Ireland anxious to have a peace concluded. “ It happened at this time,” says Carte, ‘^that the Remonstrance of the army in England on November 16, being brought over to Lord Inchiquin was reprinted by him at Cork, and sent to Kilkenny, as proper to raise in all parties of men, the utmost abhorrence of the proceedings of those success- ful rebels, who now publicly avowed their design of subverting everything that had hitherto been known for government in these nations. It had a wonderful effect in Ireland ; it not only silenced all complaints in the Protestant army, but it removed all difiiculties which the Roman Catholics, in zeal for their Religion, had thrown in the way of peace. The Assembly receded from their demands in that point, and on December 28th, December, 1650, “ e refugio nostro,” it appears that the troops of the Baron of Inchiquin, that bitter foe to religion, three times plundered the Cathedral and the Archbishop’s house at Cashel. After the capture of Limerick, the Arch- bishop was compelled to go into exile, and was carried from his bed, to which he had been confined by age and sickness, from Clonmel to Waterford, and was inhumanly put on board a ship bound for Spain, without being provided with proper food and the appliances necessary for his condition Propaganda. Quoted in Brady’s Episcopal Succession^ Vol. II., p. 24. John de Burgo, or Burke, was translated from the See of Clonfert to the Archbishoprick of Tuam in March, 1647. The Nuncio writing to Cardinal Pamphilio in December, 1645, says, John de Burgo was “a man of mature Judgment and upright intentions and in August, 1646, he says “he con- sidered him in every way worthy of the Archbishoprick.” Episcopal Succession, Vol. II., p. 144. Later on he had cause to change his opinion, for John of Tuam, and his brother, Hugh of Kilmacduagh, both Clanrickard’s relations, gave him annoyance, ih. 145. The Archbishop with his suffragan, Kirwan of Killala, and Lynch of Kilfenora had the gates of St. Nicholas broken open, and celebrated within it, in spite of the interdict. — Confederation of Kilkenny, p. * Carte, Vol. II., p. 45. Aphor. Discovery, Vol. I., p. 283. The Archbishop of Tuam was admitted to become a member of the Council on the same condi- tion, — Embassy in Ireland, p. 460. 292 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH ‘ upon consideration of his Majesty’s present condition, and their own hearty desires of spending their lives and fortunes in main- taining his rights and interests, they resolved unanimously to accept of the Marquis of Ormonde’s answer to their propositions for religion.’”* The terras of peace having been at length arranged, they were solemnly ratified in Kilkenny Castle, on the 17th of January, 1649, just thirteen days before the man with whom the peace was made was beheaded at Whitehall. f This Peace was substantially and almost verbatim the same as that of ’46. Where any difference exists between them the peace of ’49 is fuller and clearer than that of ’46. As soon as the news of the King’s death reached Ormonde, he had the Prince proclaimed king in such towns as owned his authority. He hoped that having driven the Nuncio from Ire- land he would be able to make such a combination, political and military, as would enable him to hold the country for Charles II. ; but this was no easy task to accomplish, and Ormonde, with all his tact and ability, found it too much for him. In the first instance he made overtures to O’Neill through his nephew, Daniel O’Neill. Ormonde was very anxious to get O’Neill to join him, because he had a high opinion of his honour and his great military talents, and because he knew the Ulster people would follow his lead, so that with the Confederate forces, his own, and O’Neill’s, he hoped to be strong enough to make successful head against the Parliament. O’Neill was in great straits at this time, and must of necessity come to terms with one or other of the contending parties. In the end of the Spring of 1648 it became known that the Supreme Council, Ormonde and Inchiquin, had agreed to the preliminaries of a peace — the peace just referred to as having been finally settled in January, 1649. Upon this, more than half O’Neill’s army, following the advice and example of their commanders, deserted him ; those commanders were such as had been in 'pos- session of their estates when the rising took place in 1641, and no doubt hoped by joining Ormonde now to be reinstated in them. The most important of them were : — Sir Phelim O’Neill, Lord Iveagh, Alexander McDonnell, Bryan McColl McMahon, ^ Carte’s Ormonde, fol. Ed., Vol. II., p. 49. The Remonstrance of the Army- above referred to -was presented to the Commons by the officers against any further treaty -with Charles, and required that he and his adherents be brought to justice. — Waders British Chronology, p. 194. Some days later a Remon- strance was presented from the Army “ to bring the King to justice.” Crom- well was the prime mover in these Remonstrances, ib. t The warrant for the King’s execution was signed by fifty-nine of his judges. Cromwell’s name is third on the list. IN IRELAND. 293 Myles O’Reilly, Hugh Boy O’Donnell, Torlogh O’Neill McHenry, Art McHugh Boy O’Neill (both of the Fues), and Daniel Oge Magennis, uncle to Lord Iveagh.^ Weak as O’Neill’s army had become by the defection of his leading adherents, he sent a dignified and manly reply to Ormonde’s overtures. ‘‘ The distance,” he says, ‘‘your Excel- lencie finds me at with the rest of the Confederates, is occasioned by my obligation to defend his Holiness, his Nuncio, and the rest of the clergy that adhered to him, and myself too, from the violence and indiscretion of some of the Council that were at Kilkenny, as the agents which now I send to the Assembly will clearly make appeare. As for the treaty which your Excellencie hath begun with the Assembly, if it end with the satisfaction of the clergie in point of religion, and of the rest of the Assembly in what concerns the common interest of the nation, and the safety and advantage of the poore provinces which intrusted me with their arms, I shall with much joy and gladness submit to the conclusion of it; for these are the ends which made mee quit the good condition I was in abroad, with a great deal of trouble to myselfe, and expense of my fortune heere.” O’Neill then proceeded to state the conditions on which he would join Ormonde. He demanded to have his post of General confirmed to him, independently of any authority but that of the Lord Lieutenant ; and that an army of 6,000 foot and 800 horse might be maintained to serve under him, at the general charge of the kingdom, if the appointment in Ulster failed owing to expense. Ormonde was quite willing to yield to O’Neill’s demands, including that one about the number of troops he was to have under him, but the Commissioners, who were old mem- bers of the Supreme Council, and were the sole judges of the number of troops the country was able to maintain, would allow O’Neill only 4,000 foot and 600 horse. He was provoked at this, and so no agreement was made with Ormonde. After- wards, I believe through Ormonde’s influence, and not for the reasons given by Carte, the Commissioners consented to give Owen the full number of men he had demanded, provided he would accept amongst them Lord Iveagh’s, Sir Phelim O’Neill’s and Alexander McDonnell’s regiments, all of whom had deserted from him, and in whose company he did not believe his life would be safe. This was the greatest affront of all, and, says * See a Journal of the most Memorable Transactions of General Owen O’Neill and his party, from the year 1640 to the year 1650. Faithfully related by Colonel Henry M'Tully O’Neill, who served under him. Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica^ p. 511. Also a History of the Warr in Ireland by a British Officer in Sir J, Clottworthy’s Regiment, p. 69. 294 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Carle, “ he resolved to show them their mistake, and rejected the conditions proposed.”* The Commissioners constituted what was called the “ Interval Government.” When the General Assembly and the Supreme Council were dissolved, some power became necessary to con- tinue the work the Council had been doing, and in some sort to represent them ; so Ormonde and Inchiquin laid their heads together, and out of their consultation sprang the Interval Government, or, in other words, “ The Commissioners of Trust,” who substantially continued the powers of the defunct Supreme Council. They were*]* associated in the government with Ormonde, and were all creatures of his. It would appear that O’JN'eill had some private communica- tions with Michael Jones, even before his correspondence with Ormonde. Such was his condition for some time, that it had become an urgent necessity with him to join some party. His army was greatly reduced; he had no ammunition ; and every general in the field was at the head of a force hostile to him. It seems to be also the fact that he addressed himself to the Parliamentary party in England, through one Abbot Crilly, who had been with the Marquis of Antrim in Paris, and offered them his services, “ if they [his party] might obtain indemnity for what was passed, and assurance of the enjoyments of their religion and estates for the time to come.” The Parliamentary Council appointed General Ludlow and some others to confer with this agent, which they accordingly did, and in due time reported that in their opinion O’Neill’s demands should not be granted. In this the Council agreed, and so the agent was dismissed. J On the 8th of May, O’Neill concluded a truce with Colonel Monk, then holding Dundalk for the Parliament, § By the fifth article Monck was to give “ free leave and liberty” that any ship or ships arriving in any harbour or port-tov»^n within the said Colonel Monk’s jurisdiction, with arms or ammunition or * Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. IT., p. 57. The Commissioners, who hated O’Neill, acted as above related more to spite him than to serve any interest. t They were twelve in number, viz., Viscounts Dillon and Muskery, Lord Athenry, Alex. M‘Donnell, Sir Lucas Dillon, Sir N. Plunket, Sir Richard Barnewall, Geffrey Browne, Donogh O’ Callaghan, Tirlogh O’Neill, Miles O’Reilly, and Gerald Fennell. I follow Carte in this list of names ; the one in the Aphorism. Discovery is somewhat different. % Ludlow’s Memoirs, p. 294. Swiss Ed. 1698. ^ Five days after his agreement with Monk, O’Neill wrote to the Dean of Ferns and Rinuccini that he abhorred joining the faction of the Supreme Council, or those in power in Dublin, but that unless he got some aid he would be necessitated to join one or the other. IN IK ELAND. 295 other commodities f@r O’Neill, should be admitted ; that he, O’Neill, be allowed to carry such supplies away ; and that the ships bringing such things be permitted to depart without any pre- judice, a.t their will and pleasure.^ Besides the power of landing ammunition and stores in Dundalk, O’Neill obtained from Monk a supply of powder and “ match proportionable,” of which he was in much need, and for which he despatched a convoy of 500 foot and 300 horse, under the command of General O’Ferrall; but Inchiquin, who, after taking Drogheda, was on his way to Dundalk, having got intelligence of this, sent Colonel Mark Trevor to attack the convoy. The latter made great havoc amongthem,and seized the ammunition and supplies. This disaster, which happened within sight of Dundalk, caused such a panic in O’Neill’s army, that he hastily withdrew into Longford.f Inchiquin, flushed with his victory, came before Dundalk and summoned it to surrender. Monk’s soldiers, w'ho a day or two previously, had promised to stand by him to the last, “ ran away over the trenches to Inchiquin, swearing deep oaths that they would not engage with Monk, who entered into con- federacy with Owen Rowe, the head of the native Irish.”J The fear of Inchiquin may have had more to do with this desertion than Owen Roe, for by the latter’s arrangement with Monk, he was to fight for the Parliament, whilst Inchiquin, having turned traitor to the Parliamentarians, was now fighting against them. If Monk’s soldiers truly stated the cause of their desertion, it is a strong proof of the unreasoning hatred they had for the Celtic Irish. Monk’s soldiers having deserted him, Dundalk was at once surrendered to Inchiquin, “ upon no other conditions, but that Monk might dispose of what was his as he saw good.”§ Accord- ingly he sold oft' whatever he owned, and, says Whitelock, “ Colonel Mark Trevor was there a great purchaser, and bought choice sheep for three pound a score, cows for thirty pound a score, and horses for forty pound a score, and so made himself up a regiment, and was made governor of the town to boot.”|| He had lately changed sides. Monk proceeded to London, where he was called upon by the Council of State, then the governing body, to account for his having any transactions with O’Neill. Monk appears to have given very good reasons from his own * Aphor. Discovery, Vol. II., p. 216. t Colonel Henry O’Neill says, in his Journal, that he went to Clones, j Whitelock’s English Affairs, London, 1732, p. 416. Quoted in Preface to 2nd Vol. of Aphorism. Discovery, p. ix. 11 Ibid.’ 296 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH standpoint for his having done so, looking especially to the danger he was in from Inchiquin, who was then marching on Dundalk from Drogheda. The Council expressed its disapproval “ of what General Monk had done in concluding a peace with the grand and bloody Irish rebel, Owen Rowe O’Neal, did abhor the having anything to do with him therein,” but expressed their opinion, that Monk did, according to his judgement, what he believed best for the English interest, and so decided that he was not to be further questioned about the same for the time to come. Monk was much provoked at the whole proceeding, and “ some did think it was never forgotten by him.”* * * § As soon as peace had been concluded between Ormonde and the Confederates, their armies were united into one, and from that time Ormonde’s great design was to make himself master of Dublin, believing that the taking of the capital would decide the fate of the kingdom. With this view he applied himself actively to increase his forces, and with such success that on the 1st of June, he had assembled at Carlow 6,000 foot and 2,000 horse ; and on the 14th of the same month,he was joined by Inchiquin with 2,000 foot. There is no mention of horse, but in those days a proportion of horse was an essential part of any force, so that in all probability Inchiquin had also with him some 400 or 500 horse at least.f Thus reinforced, Ormonde moved towards Dublin, taking Naas in bis way, and baited at Castleknock. Besides this army, Castlehaven was at the head of 5,000 foot and 1,000 horse, J with which he had taken Maryborough, Athy and other places, during the month of May, and with which he must have joined Ormonde, as we find him at Rathmines wdth him. Jones at this time also received reinforcements from England, but their numbers are variously stated. Ludlow, who ought to be a good authority on the points, says they consisted of a regiment of horse and two regiments of foot, but regiments were seldom or never up to their full complement.§ After his successful expedition to Drogheda and Dundalk, Inchiquin returned to Einglas with “ an unimpaired army but he soon had to take his departure for Munster. It was reported, and correctly, that Cromwell intended to land in that Province, which had been denuded of its troops to swell Ormonde’s forces * Ibid., p. 419. t Carte, Vol. II., pp. 71 and 72. t Carte sets down the forces under Castlehaven at 2,000 foot and 300 horse, but the above numbers are given by Castlehaven himself, Memoirs, p. 108. § Cox gives the forces brought from England by Colonels Reynolds and Venables to the relief of Jones, as 600 horse and 1,500 foot. Vol. II., p. 6. IN IRELAND. 297 in preparation for his intended attack upon Dublin ; and so it was thought necessary to despatch Inchiquin into those parts to protect them, and harass and obstruct Cromwell in his progress. He took his departure with two regiments of horse and his own guards, a force which may be roundly set down at 2,000 men, all told. Cromwell after all did not land in Munster, but in Dublin. Lord Dillon of Castello, having been left at Finglas with 2,000 foot and 500 horse to prevent supplies entering Dublin from the North, Ormonde crossed the Liffey on the 25th of July,* and encamped at Eathmines. He took Eathfarnham, a place about two miles, south of Eathmines, by storm, and after some days resolved to seize an old fort called Baggotrath, which lay between him and the sea. The chief reason for trying to occupy Baggotrath was to prevent Jones’s horse from grazing in the fields near it, and so starve them, as they seemed to have no fodder in the city. This attempt led to the battle of Eathmines, so fatal to Ormonde and his army. Before any movement was made on Baggotrath, Lord Castlehaven, General Preston, Major General Purcell, and Sir A. Aston were sent to examine the place, and on their return approved of it in all respects for the object intended. As soon as it was dark on the evening of the 1st of August, Purcell with 1,500 foot (the number settled upon as sufficient), and materials for fortifying, set out for Baggotrath, but did not arrive there till within less than an hour of daylight. Ormonde rode over as soon as there was light, and, to his dis- appointment found the work but little advanced, while it was also discovered that parties of Jones’s troopjs were drawn out under the city defences, observing those engaged at Baggotrath. The question then was, ought Purcell’s party retire, or should they go on with the work of fortifying. It was resolved to pro- ceed with the work, and await Jones, should he attack them. Ormonde, who, according to Carte, had been up all night, returned to his quarters to take some repose, and as he rode through the camp he ordered all the regiments to stand to their arms, and be ready to meet J ones ;*|* at least Carte says so, with what truth we cannot now determine. t * Carte, II., p. 77. t Carte, II,, p. 79. X Ibid., p. 81. “Under tbe circumstances the Lord Lieutenant should either have withdrawn his troops, or brought up his whole army to cover his works. He did neither, but returned to his camp at Eathmines, and lay down to sleep I What are we to say of the general, who went to sleep at the very moment that he saw the enemy preparing to attack his lines ?” — Taylor’s Civil Wars in Ireland, Vol. II., pp. 12-13. 298 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Ormonde had not long gone to rest when he was aroused by volleys of shot, from which it was clear Jones had attacked the party at Baggotrath. He mounted as quickly as he could, rode towards that place, but had scarcely gone a hundred paces, when he met Purcell’s men flying towards him, Jones having attacked and routed them. In this attack. Sir W. Yaughan fell mortally wounded. A complete panic seems to have seized the main body, although it cannot be said the attack was unexpected. The men whom Ormonde, some hours before, had told to stand to their arms, did not do so, but fled disgracefully, and so pre- cipitancy, that it was found impossible to rally them. It was a day of unparalleled humiliation for Ormonde, for he found himself routed and ruined by the man to whom he, a short time before, had delivered the King’s Castle of Dublin, the accredited representative of the King’s enemies in Ireland. No wonder that the Irish, always loyal to the King, believed that Ormonde had a secret understanding with the Parliament. This victory surprised no one more [than Jones himself. The very utmost he intended was to drive Purcell’s party from Baggotrath, but having routed them so easily, he pursued his success till the great Boyal Army, as it was vauntingly called, literally fled like sheep before him."^ Baggage, ammunition, arms, everything fell into Jones’s hands, including £4,000 which was at Bathfarnham, and which in their headlong flight they forgot to carry away. “Jones,” according to the Marquis of Ormonde'’s account, “slew 600 in that engagement ; some upon the spot, and in the pur- suit ; but the greatest part after they had lain down their arms, upon promise of quarter, and had been for almost an hour prisoners ; and divers of them were murdered, after they were brought within the works at Dublin.”*]* Carte gives the prisoners at 300 officers and 1,500 common soldiers. Whatever the killed and wounded and prisoners may have been, one thing is * For some account of Baggotrath, see Appendix. f Carte. Original Papers, Vol. II., p. 897. No great number could have been killed in actual combat, for there was very little real fighting ; but the number of prisoners seems to be understated. Ludlow says : “ Having routed these [Inchiquin’s horse] he marched with all diligence up to the walls of Bathmines, w^hich were about 16 feet high, and contained about ten acres of ground, where many of the enemies foot had shut themselves ; but perceiving their army to be entirely routed, and their general fled, they yielded themselves prisoners. After this our men continuing their pursuit, found a party of about two thousand foot of the Lord InchiquinX ii^ a grove belonging to Eathgar, who after some defence, obtained conditions for their lives, and next day most of them took up arms in our service.” Memoirs, p. 298. Cox says (Vol. II., p. 7), that 4,000 men were killed, and 2,517 taken prisoners ; several officers of note, all the artillery, 200 draught oxen, and all the baggage of an exceedingly rich camp became the reward and prize of the victors. IN IRELAND. 299 certain, the Royal Army was utterly broken at Rathmines, on that memorable 2nd of August, 1649. As to the numbers engaged at this battle, there is little or no difficulty about the strength of J ones’s forces, but it is not so easy to give a reasonably accurate idea of the number who fought, or rather who ought to have fought, under Ormonde. Carte says Jones’s army consisted of 4,000 foot and 1,200 horse, and Ludlow, from the opposite side, gives it as between four and five thousand ; so that there is but little discrepancy. Ormonde always maintained he had only 8,000 troops at Rath- mines, while Jones held that he had 18,000. The truth may lie between. I will here reckon up Ormonde’s forces as stated by his friends, who would be more likely to minimize than exag- gerate them. When he reviewed his army at Carlow, on the 1st of June, they numbered, as we have seen, 8,000 horse and foot; on the 14th of the same month, Inchiquin joined him, at the same place, with 2,000 men. The number under Castlehaven, as stated above from his own memoirs, was 6,000 horse and foot, with which he must have joined Ormonde^ for he was at Rath- mines. This makes a total of 16,000 men. Two deductions are to be made from this. Lord Dillon was left at the North of Dublin with 2,000, or as some say 2,500 men ; Inchiquin was sent to Munster with a force, which I estimate at from 1,500 to 2,000.* From 4,000 to 4,500 must therefore be deducted from the entire force of 16,000 ; so that we may fairly conclude, that the Royal Army atRathmines did not fall far short of 12,000 men. It is hard to explain why Purcell and his party took a whole night to go from Rathmines to Baggotrath, the ground lying between being as level as a bowling-green, as the author can attest from intimate knowledge. The distance between them, Carte says, was but half a mile; so that a whole night was spent in traversing one half mile of level ground ! Carte, copying the notorious Peter Walsh, explains it thus : — The treacherous Irish guides employed to conduct Purcell and his party to Baggotrath, influenced by one of their priests, a certain Edmund O’Reilly, led them astray. Nothing but Carte’s anxiety to cast odium upon the Irish and their religion, could have betrayed him into the childish folly of adopting the assertion, that they could have been led astray under the circum- stances. What did Purcell and his party want with guides at all? They had been a week at Rathmines, in sight of Baggot- * The English Officer in Sir J. Clottworthy’s regiment says he went to Munster with “ 1,500 horse, foot and dragoons,” p. 81. 800 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH rath ; Purcell himself ought to have been the best guide, for he had been over inspecting the place with the view of occupying it. The real fact appears to be that Ormonde’s camp was too full of good things, and that the soldiers gave themselves up to riotous enjoyment, and neglected their duty. This view is strongly emphasized by Cox, who says, “ When the Lord Lieutenant came in the morning to view the fortification, he did not find it in that condition he expected ; Purcell excusing himself by the fault of his guide : hereupon the care of the affair was committed to another officer^* But the Irish did more than mislead Purcell’s party, for Carte says they were the chief cause of the loss of the battle, on account of the inexpertness of the Irish officers, the rawness of their soldiers, and the panic which seized the Irish horse, who quitted the field upon Sir W. Vaughan being killed in the first charge, and could never be brought to rally.! Cox writes in the same strain; so that we are asked to believe that Irish treachery and Irish cowardice lost the battle of Rathmines to Ormonde. The time is long past, if it ever existed, when one would feel it necessary to offer even a word in vindication of Irish valour. It has been proved on too many hard fought, unforgotten fields. I myself have had the great privilege of knowing the grand old soldier who was the first man who scaled the defences, and entered Badajoz on the “murderous night” of the 6th of April, 1812; and he told me, as he climbed the scaling ladder that he saw the bayonets of the enemy in glittering files on the works above him ready to receive him on their points : yet he got in. Nor was he a braggard, that brave old Sergeant Mitchall, but a man of few words, modest as he was fearless. He was an Irish- man and a Catholic, and had the unprecedented honour of wearing thirteen clasps above his Peninsular medal. And doubtless Lord Wolesley does not yet forget that his own country- men were the first in the enemy’s works, on the famous night of Tel-el-Kebir. But Carte and Cox belonged to a class of men, unfortunately a large one, who, after the fashion of the Jews of old, felt bound to assert, and continued to assert or insinuate, that nothing good could come from Ireland. J Such has been the work for centuries ; and they are labouring at it still. There can be no worse enemies to the connexion of the two nations than they ; for by flinging their insolent falsehoods and haughty contempt * Cox, Vol. II., p. 6. The italics are mine, t Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. IF., p. 81. X “ Can anything of good come from Nazareth ? IN IRELAND. 301 at a proud and sensitive race, they have done more to engender and perpetuate hatred to England, than the wholesale robberies of James or the savage butcheries of Cromwell. Neither Cox nor Carte was cotemporaneous with the events which followed the Eising of 1641. Carte was a laborious and valuable collector, but his affectionate devotion to his hero was such that he modified or explained away whatever might have the effect of dimming the portrait of him which he had deter- mined to transmit to posterity. Cox was the son of an adven- turer, who in a short time amassed a large fortune out of the Irish confiscations under James I., most of which was lost by the war of 1641 ; so that he had a special reason for being prejudiced and unjust towards the Irish, as he was to a most indefensible extent. Neither Cox nor Carte belonged to the military profession. Let us, then, hear a man on the battle of Rath mines who was a soldier, a contemporary and an English- man. Thus writes the English officer in Sir John Clottworthy^s regiment : — “ The besieged, about eight of the clock in the morning sallied out all at one gate, and fell on the next guarde, and beat them, and so the next, and to the next without any smart opposition, till they met one Sir William Vaughan, a colonel of horse, and one MacThomas Fitzgerald, a colonel of horse, with what men they got together, who fought them courageously ; and then those who came out being better seconded than those who opposed them, the besiegers were at last beaten and put to route. After which there was no more fighting worthy relating, but all took the run, of which many got into the house where they made their quarters, both soldiers and officers. Most of the army escaped or got quarters, and were not long followed, for the plunder of merchants’ shops, sutlers’ tents, and many other inducing matters abated much the fury of the execution. For, such a camp for plenty of all things, and rich withal, was never seen in Ireland before, so as it might well be baites to poor soldiers close besieged. This army was called the Army Royal, and well it might be so, and for riches and number may well be paralleled to King Darius’s army, when he fought against Alexander the Great ; who being so numerous and confident, undervaluing their enemies, that the most of them never thought that fighting would come to their turn, and so were gaping on till they were routed without fight- ing — I mean the most part of the army. Of all conduct none is more worse than to lose an army without drawing them to fight and to second one another. Some old soldiers, especially MacArt [Owen Roe O’Neill], as I w^as told, was of opinion that that army would be beaten. His reason was, that there was 302 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH not forts or medaloons made against the gates to hinder sudden incursions out of the city ; so that all the whole within might come out at one gate, and so fall on some quarter of the camp of the besiegers, and likely might be as many in number, if not more, as that quarter they fell on — so as works before the gates would be security, at least some stop, till that quarter of the camp charged had gotten a supply and relief from other quarters.”^ When Ormonde was defeated at Rathmines, he, with an escort of horse, hurried to his stronghold in Kilkenny. He took his route by Ballysonan, a castle near Kilcullen in the Co. Kildare, which was then held against him by the enemy. Coming before it he called upon the garrison to surrender, saying that he was after winning the battle of Rathmines, and that they would refuse at their peril. Believing that he spoke the truth, they placed the Castle in his hands, which he at once garrisoned with a number of his own men then with him, and proceeded on his journey. Thus did the proud head of the house of Butler get possession of Ballysonan by a mean barefaced lie. We must now return to O’Neill, to record briefly the closing events of his life. In the beginning of May, 1649, he found himself encompassed on all sides with difficulties, and no longer in a position to serve his country ; the most he could do was to defend himself against his many and powerful enemies. The junction of the Confederate forces with Ormonde’s left Owen no choice but to come to some arrangement with one or other of the Parliament Generals. Coote was closely besieged in Derry b}^ the Lord of Ardes and Sir R. Stewart, and in his difficulties sent to O’Neill, and offered him certain terms if he would go to his relief. Owen “ had no ambition, nor means left to get away, unless by taking some desperate course ; on which he settled his thoughts, and off-hand summoned a provincial council to meet at Belturbet, where it was concluded (upon the invitation sent by Sir Charles Coote) to treat with him for ammunition ; and commissioners [were] appointed immediately to meet him for that purpose, or his Commissioners, at Newtown, near Drima- hire, where Colonel Richard Coote and Major Ormsby met, and agreed to give thirty barrels of powffier, ball and match pro- portionably, and three hundred beeves, or four hundred pounds in money conditionally : O’Neill should march with his army to relieve Derry ; Secretary Glancy was left at Sligo to receive the ammunition ; but within two days after. Colonel Coote *The History of the Wars of Ireland from 1641 to 1653. By a British officer of the Regiment of Sir John Clottworthy, pp. 81 et seq. IN IRELAND. 303 wrote to O’Neill that his brother the Lord President would not stand to these articles, and so broke off. Whereupon to try other conclusions, Hugh McPat. Duff McMahon was sent to Colonel Monk with the like proposal which was readily granted.”* The unfortunate result of the agreement with Monk is given above. When O’Neill had retired to Clones from the neigh- bourhood of Dundalk, after losing his ammunition, “ an express came to him the next day from Sir Charles Coote, acquainting him that Derry was again besieged by my Lord Montgomery and the Scotch, and that he would allow and ratify the former pro- posals, so he went to raise the Scotch from Derry, which O’Neill was forced to accept of this time; and in order to make good his part of the agreement, marches by short steps with his army, consistiug of 2,000 men, till he came to Ballykelly in the county of Derry, of which he possessed himself. The Scotch hearing of his approach, raised their siege and posted away by day and night, till they were over the Bann water, in their own country.”! From this nimble activity of theirs, we may infer that they retained a lively recollection of their defeat at Benburb. After the departure of the Scotch, O’Neill led his army up to Derry, and encamped before it on the Tyrone side of the river, where president Coote came to compliment him, and perform his conditions. He afterwards invited him and his chief ofhcers into the town, and entertained them most hospitably. Whilst O’Neill remained encamped before Derry, which was for about eight or nine days, he fell ill of his death sickness. There has been always a very general and firm tradition in Ireland that he was made away with by slow poison, whilst at Derry. Two principal accounts are given of the way in which he was poisoned. The first is that of the author of the Aphorismical Discovery, who seems to have been of his suite. That author says that amongst “ the extraordinarie plentie and curiositie” with which O’Neill was feted, it was “ surely bruited” that a cup of slow poison was given to him, through the effects of which, his hair and nails fell off by degrees. His physician. Doctor Owen O’Sheel was absent at the time, and those who were available, treated him for gout. The second version of the poisoning is that of Colonel Henry O’Neill, who says : — “ O’Neill continued encamped [before Derry] eight or nine days longer, where he unfortunately fell sick, occasioned (as some confidently affirmed, and was myself since assured by an English officer that it was so), by a poisoned pair of russet leather boots, sent him as a present by a gentleman * Colonel H. O Neill’s Journal in Desiderata Curiosa Hibernica, p. 519. t Ibid., p. 520. 304 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH of the Plunkets, from the county of Louth, who boasted to this gentleman, that he did the English a considerable service in dispatching O’JSTeill out of the world.”^ If O’Neill were poisoned, as is not at all unlikely, suspicion would naturally attach to Coote, the members of whose family, throughout the whole war, were the most implacable enemies of the Irish ; nor would the relief of Derry which was only a passing arrangement, change this feeling. Besides ’tis likely that Coote had heard that O’Neill was about to join Ormonde. The Plunkets were Palesmen and Ormondites, but they were also Catholics, and certainly not noted for wicked deeds, and it is very hard to see what object a Plunket would have had in poisoning the Catholic General. Owen’s last public act was to forgive the Confederates for their persecution of him, and to come to terms with Ormonde, but this was too late to be of any practical service against Cromwell. Growing worse and worse he was removed to Clogh-otter water, near Cavan, where he died surrounded with all the consolations of religion, on the 6th of November, 1649. He was interred in the old Abbey of Cavan. f Many words are not necessary here about Owen Poe O’Neill. His name and his deeds still live fresh and green as ever on Irish soil. No general appeared in the war of 1641 that could bear comparison with him. Both friends and enemies knew this, and hence the men he led felt he could lead them to victory, whilst his enemies, dreading his generalship, never met him in the field when they could avoid it. His name was worth a thousand men and more in any battle, and the enemy fled before it, perhaps even more than they did before his soldiers. He marched to the relief of Derry with a small, ill- provided army, but when the Scotch besiegers heard he was coming, they raised the siege, and fled for their lives night and day until they found security beyond the Bann. He had all the qualities of a great general. He never fought at a disadvantage, and took the greatest care of the lives of his troops. He gave incessant attention to discipline and training ; from experience as well as natural ability he was a thorough strategist, but above all and before all he was of the most untiring vigilance. He never rested satisfied, until he saw with his own eyes that everything was done which he had ordered to be done. He left nothing to chance. Had he been seconded as he should have been, he would have achieved the civil rights and religious freedom of his country, in spite of any power that could have been arrayed against him ; but those who were associated with him, and * O’NeiH’s Journal in Desiderata Curiosa Hihernica, pp. 519-20. t Ibid., 521. IN IKELAND. 805 who should have been his friends, thwarted every design of his, and never rested until they had proclaimed a traitor and an outlaw, the only man amongst them who remained true to his country, true to his religion, and true to that Oath of Associ- ation, which all of them had so solemnly taken. But when Cromwell and Ireton with their Puritans swept over the land like a terrible hurricane, many of the unprincipled traffickers in the blood of their countrymen, who had deserted O’Neill, met with their deserts. To the last the Catholic General stood by the Nuncio, because be believed he represented the authority of the Church of Ireland, to fight for whose liberties he himself had returned from Spain to his native land. Although he was unable to accomplish all he intended for the good of his country, it is beyond doubt, that the most successful conqueror or patriot of ancient or modern times, never held a higher place in the hearts of those he served, than the great Owen Boe O’Neill does in the hearts of his grateful and admiring countrymen. u 306 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH CHAPTER XYII. Before we enter upon Cromweirs campaign in Ireland, it is well to try and realise to ourselves what manner of man he was. But this is no easy task. Like almost every man who has played a conspicuous and important part on the stage of life, he had a host of enemies, with some friends and admirers, and their varied and clashing opinions about him continue to he put forward down to the present hour. His enemies have made him a dark designing hypocrite, who did everything with an ulterior and selfish object, whilst his admirers paint him as a man whose qualities rose almost to the heroic. He certainly had great talents, but of a peculiar kind ; he believed in himself ; he had the power of keeping his own counsel, giving to others only as much of it as suited his designs. How far he believed in his personal inspiration it is hard to say, but he spoke and acted like a man who wished to suggest the idea, that he and Divine Pro- vidence understood each other very well, and that he was a chosen instrument in the hands of that Providence. “ Thorough” was a favourite word with Strafford, but Cromwell was still more thorough than Black Tom himself. It is said of him that he was of loose morals in his youth, and this charge is so feebly denied by his apologists, that the denial is a kind of admission of its truth. Even so, many men whose early lives would not bear strict scrutiny, have become eminent for virtue and sanctity ; and if Oliver was not all he ought to have been in his youth, he more than made up for his shortcomings, by prayer and preaching, after his conversion. Both these exercises seemed to give him much pleasure, and he professed his confidence in those who employed themselves in the same way. Writing to a friend after the battle of Dunbar, he says : — “ I was not satisfied with your last speech to me about Empson, ‘ that he was a better preacher than fighter or soldier,’ or words to that effect. Truly I think he that prays and preaches best will fight best.’’* It is a popular notion that Cromwell was no more than a Huntingdon farmer who left the plough at forty, took to soldiering and politics, and finally became Lord Protector — nay, King of England in everything but the name. This idea of * Cornish’s Life of Cromwell, London, 1882, p. 257. IN IRELAND. 307 Cromwell’s social position is very incorrect. The man who rose to be Lord Protector, belonged to an important county family, and his father Eobert Cromwell, a gentleman of moderate means, was the third son of Sir Oliver Cromwell, of Hinchinbrook House.^ The original name of the Cromwells of Huntingdon was Williams. They had migrated from Glamorganshire, and Richard Williams, the great-grandfather of our Oliver, was a near kinsman of Thomas Cromwell, who became Earl of Essex. This Richard Williams assumed the family name of Cromwell, out of gratitude, it may be supposed, to his relative, Thomas — “ the mauler of monks” — who had enriched him with the spoils of the monasteries ; so that it was most natural for the famous Oliver to be a hater of Popery. He went to school in Hunting- don, and although he sometimes applied himself to his lessons, he was, on the whole, looked upon as an idler. He entered at Cambridge in 1616, where he remained less than a year and a half, leaving without having taken a degree. In short, he was not an educated man, in the common acceptation of the word. He was cousin to the famous John Hampden, and when he resided at St. Ives, it is recorded of him that he paid his quota of ship- money, which his cousin Hampden refused to do. Ship-money was an odious tax, and was regarded as unconstitutional. However, the majority of the judges in Westminster Hall were persuaded to declare it as law, “That for the supply of shipping to defend the nation, the King might impose a tax upon the people; that he was to be judge of the necessity of such supply, and of the quantity to be imposed for it ; and that he might imprison as well as distrain in case of refusal.”! The time at which Oliver got the call to a new life is not precisely fixed ; writing to his cousin Mrs. St. John in October, 1638, he says : — “ You know what my manner of life hath been. Oh, I lived and loved darkness, and hated light ; I was a chief, the chief of sinners. This is true ; I hated godliness, yet God had mercy on me. 0 the riches of his mercy ! Praise him for me ; — pray for me, that He who hath begun a good work would perfect it in the day ofChrist.”!: Some 5^ears after his marriage, which took place in August, * Carlyle says Robert’s father was Sir Henry, not Sir Oliver Cromwell, but Cornish gives the names as above. t Letters and Speeches by Carlyle, Vol. I., p. 80. Sir J ohn Finch, Lord Chief- J ustice of the King’s Bench, was the contriver of this tax, and canvassed the rest of the judges in its favour, for which he was made Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. He was afterwards impeached of high-treason, but escaped to Holland, f Ludlow’s Memoirs, Vol, L, p. 6. 308 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH 1620, Cromwell got an accession to his property by the death of a relative, which raised his income to £400 or £500 a year, a sura equal, at least, to £1,500 at the present time. He led a quiet private life till he was over 40 years of age; he then became in some sense a public man in connection with the drainage of the Fens. The Court, always in straits for money, sold the right to the profits of this drainage to courtiers, and so turned it into a monopoly. The people rose against the injustice, and Cromwell became their leader. This made him popular, and, perhaps, had something to do with his return to Parliament in 1640, for the town of Cambridge. At this period he is thus graphically described : — “The first time that I ever took notice of him,” writes Sir Philip Warwick, “ was in the very beginning of the Parliament held in November, 1640, when I vainly thought myself a courtly young gentleman; for we courtiers valued ourselves much upon our good clothes. I came one morning into the House well clad, and perceived a gentleman speaking, whom I knew not, very ordinarily apparelled ; for it was a plain cloth suit, which seemed to have been made by an ill country tailor. His linen was plain, and not very clean ; and I remember a speck or two of blood upon his little band, which was not much larger than his collar. His hat was without hat- band ; his stature w^as of a good size; his sword stuck close to his side ; his countenance swollen and reddish ; his voice sharp and untunable ; and his eloquence full of fervour.”* Cromwell became a politician in the Fens’ agitation, and probably to a greater extent than he himself had realized. When he entered the House of Commons he took his seat with the Independents. The man who became a Dictator in later life, turned away from the Presbyterians, because they insisted on obedience to their decrees with all the authority of a General Council, whilst the Independents held, in theory at least, that “ every Christian Church or Congregation is entitled to elect its * Life of Cromwell by Cornish, p. 29. Referring to this description Carlyle says : — “ The ‘ band,’ we may remind our readers, is a linen tippet, properly the shirt collar of those days, which, when the hair was worn long needed to fold itself with a good expanse of washable linen over the upper works of the coat, and defend these and their velvets from harm. The ‘ specks of blood,’ if not fabulous, we, not without general sympathy, attribute to bad razors. As for the ‘ hat-band,’ one remarks that men did not speak with their hats on ; and therefore will, with Sir Philip’s leave, omit that ; the ‘untunable voice,’ or what a poor young gentleman in these circumstances would consider as such, is very significant to us.” Letters and Speeches, Vol. I., p. 88. It is surprising that Mr. Carlyle thought he settled the hat-band question, by saying that members “ did not speak with their hats on.” Surely Oliver’s hat was placed near him where it could be seen. At any rate he covered as soon as he sat down, as the custom was, when his hat would become visible to all. IN IRELAND. 309 own officers, to manage all its own affairs, and to stand indepen- dent of, and irresponsible to all authority saving that only of the Supreme and Divine Head of the Church, the Lord Jesus Christ.” The Presbyterians were more numerous in the House of Commons than the Independents, and Cromwell soon per- ceived that some other power besides that of his party was necessary to him ; that power was the army and the army alone. So he set himself at once to get the army into his hands, and succeeded to a marvel. “ That adventurer had equally obtained the confidence of the commander-in-chief and of the common soldier. Dark, artful, and designing, he governed Fairfax by his suggestions, while he pretended only to second the projects of that general. Among the privates he appeared as the advocate of liberty and toleration, joined with them in their conventicles, equalled them in the cant of fanaticism, and affected to resent their wrongs as religionists and their privations as soldiers. To his fellow-officers he lamented the ingratitude and jealousy of the Parliament, a court in which experience showed that no mao, not even the most meritorious patriot was secure. To-day he might be in high favour, to-morrow at the insidious suggestion of some obscure lawyer or narrow-minded bigot, he might find himself under arrest, and be consigned to the Tower. That Cromwell already aspired to the eminence to which he after- wards soared, is hardly credible ; but that his ambition was awakened, and that he laboured to bring the army into collision with the Parliament, was evident to the most careless observer.”* That he was prime mover in Colonel Pride’s purging of the Parliament in December, 1648, there is no doubt, but he took care to be absent from London at the time, thus seeming to take no part in it. Cromwell had a great knack of putting blame and responsi- bility away from himself. It was Providence did it, God would have it so, or, it was the villainy or wrong-headedness of men, that compelled him to do things be had no mind to I Early in the troubles he writes of the King : — “ The Lord hath hardened his heart more and more; he has refused to hear reason, or to care for our cause or religion or peace.” Oliver was always in the right, and those who acted with him were “ honest men.” He said to Lord Manchester soon after the war had begun, tentatively. * Liugard’s England, Vol. VIII., p. 77. Dr. Lingard adds in a note : — “ As early as August 2ad, 1648, Huntingdon, the major of his regiment, in his account of Cromwell’s conduct, noticed, that in his chamber at Kingston, he said, ‘ What a sway Stapleton and Hollis had heretofore in the kingdom, and he knew nothing to the contrary, but that he was as well able to govern the kingdom, as either of them.’ ” — Journals X., 411. 310 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH no doubt : ** If you will stick to honest men you shall have such an army as shall give the law to King and Parliament too.”* He could write and speak in the mildest and simplest manner — “ I told him so, indeed I did,'' “ I thought so, indeed I did;" in these and like forms he put forward his views, with the apparent timidity of a school girl. But the evil qualities of his nature were but thinly lacquered over by such phraseology. The part he took in the King's condemnation and death was of the most decided character. He said to Algernon Sydney, “ I tell you, we will cut off his head with the crown upon it !" “ He is said to have threatened Colonel Downs into acquiescence with the other regicides, to have held Colonel Ingoldsby’s hand whilst he signed, and to have smeared Henry Martin’s face with ink as soon as he had signed his own name. It is generally asserted also that he desired to view the King’s body as it lay in the coffin, which he tried to open with his staff. But failing to do so, he took a sword from a soldier, and forced the lid open with the hilt of it. He then stood and gazed at it steadily, saying that ‘ it appeared sound and well made for a long life;’ or according to another account, ‘ that if he had not been a King, he might have lived longer.’ The credit of Charles’s death, for good or evil, is generally given to Cromwell. He was actively consenting to it, and without his consent and co-operation, it would not have been carried out.”t During his career up to the King’s death, Cromwell’s favourite themes were patriotism and liberty — “ liberty for this poor country of ours.” But immediately after the King was disposed of, and that Cromwell became the first man in the realm, he changed his note, and his mild and friendly biographer is compelled to write of him, that he, in order to deal with all interests, had “ to meet plot with counterplot, and make use of all the methods of secret information ; to check freedom of speech and action, and by turns deceive and coerce. The word Necessity — ‘ the tyrant’s plea’ — was henceforward con- stantly on his lips, and like other liberators, he was drawn on by a fatal necessity to imitate the very principles and methods of the tyranny which he had overthrown."X But it was in the dismissal of the Long Parliament that Cromwell’s character came out with sharpest distinctness. “ It seems clear that he had, by this time, conceived the idea of making himself King ; but great difficulties stood in the way, * Cornish’s Life of Cromwell, p. 86. The Italics in the above passages are mine. J. O’E. f Cornish’s Life of Cromwell, p. 179. X Cornish, p. 187. IN lEELAND. 311 for there was a large and influential party of sincere republicans, who wanted no King. The leader of this party was Sir Henry Vane, the most important man in the House of Commons except Cromwell. He wished to diminish the number of the army, both for the sake of retrenchment and the public safety. He wished a new representative Chamber [or body] to be chosen more fairly and reasonably than former Parliaments; and until this was accomplished, he thought the existing Parliament should not surrender its powers. Every point in this view of Vane’s interfered with and crossed Cromwell’s plans. He found as many faults as he could with Vane’s bill, but Vane had made up his mind to pass his bill. So Cromwell’s counter move was to make a clean sweep of the Long Parliament before the bill could be passed, which Vane was rapidly hurrying through its stages. Cromwell was at Whitehall on the 19th of April, 1653, holding a conference with some of his officers for establishing a Council of Notables, with himself at their head, until a perma- nent form of government could be established. They broke up without coming to any definite conclusion. They met again early on the morning of the 20th, but were not long in conclave when intelligence reached them, that the Parliament intended to pass Sir H. Vane’s bill into law that morniug. Cromwell rose from his seat, and went at once down to the House accompanied by a file of musketeers. These he left in the lobby, and entered the House himself, dressed in a plain suit of black, with gray worsted stockings. He sat on a back bench and listened with seeming interest to the debate, but when the Speaker was going to put the question, he whispered to Harrison, ‘ This is the time, I must do it.’ He rose, uncovered, and addressed the House ; at first mildly and decorously, but by degrees becoming violent, he attacked the members, charging them with profaneness and tyranny. Some he named or pointed out, and called them the most opprobrious and shameful names. He told them the Lord had disowned them — that He had done with them, and had chosen other instruments. At length a member, Sir Peter Wentworth, interrupting, said he had never listened to language so unparliamentary, or at all so offensive, since it was addressed to them by their own servant, whom they had too fondly cherished, and whom, by their unprecedented bounty, they had made what he was. At these words Cromwell put on his hat, and springing from his place, exclaimed, ‘ Come, come, sir, I will put an end to your prating.’ He paced up and down for a few seconds in apparently the most violent agitation, and then stamping on the floor added, ‘ You are no parliament. I say you are no parliament: bring S12 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH them Id, bring them in.’ The door was at once thrown open, and Colonel Worseley entered, followed by more than twenty musketeers. ‘This,’ cried Sir Henry Yane, ‘is not honest. It is against morality and common honesty.’ Then Cromwell fell a railing at him, crying out with a loud voice, ‘ O Sir Henry Vane, Sir Henry Yane ! the Lord deliver me from Sir Henry Yane.’ He pointed to the Speaker, Lenthall, saying, ‘ fetch him down ;’ then pointing to the mace he said, ‘ What shall we do with this fools’ bauble ? Here, take it away !’ After this smart piece of work, Oliver grew pious, and turning to the members of the House, he cried, ‘ It is you that have forced me to this. I have sought the Lord night and day^ that he would rather slay me than put me upon the doing of this work.’ He then ordered the guard to clear the House, took up the act and put it under his cloak, commanded the doors to be locked up, and went away to Whitehall.”*'^ Sir Philip Warwick’s portraiture of Cromwell has been already placed before the reader ; another by one of his latest biographers is worth being re-produced here. It describes him as he probably appeared about the time of the taking of Basing House, the princely stronghold and residence of the Marquis of Winchester. This occurred in October, 1645. “ He was now,” says Mr. Cornish, “ in the vigour of his manhood, unbroken by illness, unsoured by opposition ; his faith was not clouded with difficulties; he had committed no crime against loyalty or liberty. Let us draw a protrait of him as he was seen by the eyes of friends and enemies then. In height he was under six feet, big and strongly made, good at manly exercise, a bold rider and a lover of horses, his shoulders broad, his head (set a little aside) large, ‘ a vast treasury of natural parts ;’ with sweetness as well as dignity in the open brow and the fall of the thin greyish hair. His eyebrows were thick, with deep* cut wrinkles between them, and a large wart over the right eye. Light grey eyes, looking out inscrutably as if they said, ‘ I will know thy thoughts, but thou shalt not know mine eyes that could express tenderness, severity, burning zeal, religious exaltation, flaming human anger. The expression of the mouth and chin is variously given by the portraits ; but secrecy, strength of will and impatience of control are never absent. His complexion was a source of endless satisfaction to his enemies. ‘ Euby nose,’ ‘ Copper nose,’ and after a while ‘ Nose Almighty’ are the common nicknames given him. His face is described as tanned leather. We must * Ludlow’s Memoirs, pp. 455, et seq. See Cornish, pp, £94-5. Liugard, Vol. VIIL, pp. 191-2. . IN IRELAND. 313 imagine a coarse red complexion of scorbutic tendency, and a big red nose ; a countenance not without its own comeliness, not to be looked on with indifference, as of one fit ‘ to threaten and com- mand.’ Such to look upon was Oliver Cromwell when, having put an end to the civil war, he stood forth as the foremost man in England, ‘our chief of men.’ But it is easier to pull down than to build up, and hence Cromwell’s real troubles were still nearly all before him. Fits of religious enthusiasm now and then seize upon the masses, and this was notably the case in Cromwell’s generation. Preaching and praying by personal inspiration were the privileges of the saints in those times. The fifth-monarchy men were daily expecting the visible appearance of Christ amongst them, to inaugurate the millennium ; and a chief reason of theirs for seeking to dethrone the King was that the throne might be vacant for the True and only King when He would come. Cromwell was seized to a considerable extent with the prevail- ing mania, and soon became as prominent and nearly as long- winded a preacher as the best of them.f In this he may have been sincere enough at first, but as he rose to power and importance, and when vistas of future greatness began to open before him, he made his religious enthusiasm subservient to his ambitious designs, and what first passed for pious fervour and religious enthusiasm, began to be called hypocrisy by his enemies. Even Burnet, who is not inclined to be severe on Cromwell says: — “ The enthusiast and the dissembler mixed so equally in a great part of his deportment, that it was not easy to tell which was the prevailing character.’’^ Whilst this observation is substantially correct, it must be further said that the percentage of the baser ingredient perceptibly increased with time. He tried to become all things to all men who he thought could help him to advance those ambitious designs, which, day after day, seemed to take greater possession of him. But although he laboured to gain popularity, he had a strong conviction of its instability. When he, in company with Lambert and other ofB.cers, was going after the army to Scotland in 1650, the people shouted and wished them success as they went along ; whereupon Lambert remarked to Cromwell, that he was glad to see they had the nation on their side. Cromwell answered, “ Ho not trust to that, for these very • Cornish’s Life of Oliver Cromwell, pp. 115-16. t Of course he could not match Henderson, who frequently preached for six hours together. Burnet says that this system of interminable preaching and praying rose to such a height, that the ministers sometimes said a grace before meals of an hour’s length ! X Barnet’s History of his own Time, Yol. I., p. 112. 314 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH persons would shout as much if you and I were going to be hanged/’"^ He always did his best to conceal his real views, whilst he was continually on the watch to read the thoughts of others. In courage and conduct he equalled the most renowned of his contemporaries ; but he excelled them all in fraud and dissimu- lation. By these qualities he gained the ascendancy over Fairfax, while he was no more than the second officer in the army.”t At the battle of Naseby “ both Fairfax and Cromwell bore themselves gallantly. Fairfax fought all day without a helmet, careless of his life, riding amongst the shot to every part of the field.” But Cromwell was not to be outdone, for having “had his morion cut from his head by a cavalier with whom he exchanged a bullet singly ; one of his party picked up the helmet and threw it into his saddle, which Oliver, hastily catching, clapped it the wrong way on his head, and so fought with it the rest of the day.”J Among his many gifts, Cromwell had that of tears to a copious extent. Burnet says, that Sir Harbotle Grennon, a few weeks before his death, related to him the following incident : — “ When the House of Commons and the army were a-quarrelling, at a meeting of the officers it was pro- posed to purge the army better, that they might know whom to depend on. Cromwell upon that, said he was sure of the army, but there was another body that had more need of purging, naming the House of Commons, and he thought the army only could do that. Two officers that were present brought an account of this to Grimston, who carried them with him to the lobby of the House of Commons, they being resolved to justify it to the House. There was another debate then on foot; but Grimston diverted it, and said he had a matter of privilege of the highest sort to lay before them ; it was about the being and freedom of the House. So he charged Cromwell with the design of putting a force upon the House : he had his witnesses at the door, and desired they might be examined. They were brought to the bar, and justified all that they had said to him, and gave a full relation of all that had passed at their meetings. When they withdrew, Cromwell fell down on his knees, and made a solemn prayer to God, attesting his innocence, and his zeal for the service of the House. He submitted himself to the Provi- dence of God, who, it seems, thought fit to exercise him with * Ibid., p. 120. t Smollet, Vol. VII., p. 417. London, 1759. t Cornisb, p. 10.5. IN IRELAND. 315 calumny and slander ; but he committed his cause to Him. This he did with great vehemence, and with many tears."*^' After this strange and bold preamble, he made so long a speech, justi- fying both himself and the rest of the officers, except a few that seemed inclined to return back to Egypt, that he wearied out the House, and wrought so much on his party, that what the witnesses had said was so little believed, that had it been moved, Grimston thought, that both he and they would have been sent to the Tower To complete the scene, as soon as ever Crom- well got out of the House, he resolved to trust himself no more among them : but went to the army, and in a few days he brought them up and forced a great many from the House.” “ I had much discourse on this head with one who knew Crom- well, and all that set of men ; and asked him how they could excuse all the prevarications and other ill things of which they were visibly guilty in the conduct of their affairs. He told me, they believed there were great occasions in which some men were called to great services ; in the doing of wffiich they were excused from the common rules of morality ; such were the practices of Ehud and Jael, Samson and David ; and by this they fancied they had a privilege from observing the standing rules.’' “ It is very obvious,” Burnet adds, “ how far this principle may be carried and how all justice and mercy may be laid aside on this pretence by every bold enthusiast.”! In explanation of the passage quoted above from Burnet about Cromwell bringing the army to London, it may be useful to say, that the question in debate at the time in the House of Com- mons was one with regard to coming to terms with the King, then at Hurst Castle. It was debated three days, and at one time there were 340 members present. On the 6th of December Colonel Pride was sent with a strong detachment to West- minster ; he discharged the usual guards of both Houses and in their place posted his own soldiers. He took his stand on the lobby with a list of the members in his hand. Lord Grey stand- ing beside him to point out their persons. He arrested 52 of the most distinguished Presbyterian members, and sent them to prison ; a further expurgation took place next day, and finally, forty-seven members were imprisoned, and ninety-six excluded, so that the House was reduced to about fifty members, who were dignified with the well known appellation of the “ Rump.” * The author of “ Killing no Murder,” says, his Highness had a faculty to be fluent in his tears and eloquent in his execrations, and that he had spongy eyes, and a supple conscience. t Burnet’s History of his Own Time, Vol. I., pp. 60, 1, 2. S16 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH This is known in history as Pride’s Purge. It was, doubtless, the work of the man who had solemnly attested on his knees a short time before, his zeal for the service of the House and his innocence; but the “artful Oliver did not arrive in London till the day after Col. Pride had purified the House of Commons, having travelled through the northern counties from Scotland by very slow marches. On his arrival he was conducted to the royal apartment at Whitehall, where it is the common opinion that he occupied one of the King’s rich beds. He declared he had not been acquainted with the design of purging the House, yet since it was done he was glad of it, and would endeavour to maintain it.”* The army now became the sole governing body in England. The principles of Cromwell and his party are given above in a general way from Burnet, but they have been more precisely stated by Major Huntingdon who belonged to Cromwell’s own regiment. During Cromwell’s absence in the North, in 1648, that officer resigned his commission and “published a paper of reasons for doing so, in which, after charging Cromwell with dis- honesty, treason, and ambitious designs, he declares that all the evil proceeds from the influence of evil principles, declaring that Cromwell had often professed wrong rules of morality as a standard of what was lawful. They are as follow : — 1. That every single man is judge of just and right, as to the good and ill of the kingdom. 2. That the interest of honest men is the interest of the kingdom. 8. That it is lawful to pass through any forms of government for the accomplishing of his end ; and ihereforey either to purge the Houses and support the remaining party hy force everlastingly, or to put a period to them hy force is very lawful, and suitable to the interest of honest men. 4 That it is lawful to play the knave with a knave.” This was published before the purging of the House of Commons, “and would,” Mr. Cornish adds, “ be worthless if it had been written five years later ; but it is remarkable as showing what was, even then, believed of Cromwell’s principles and methods of conduct.”t Passing over the king’s death and Cromwell’s Irish campaign, which will be treated later on, I proceed to give two or three additional illustrations of Oliver’s character. He once said, “ No man climbs so high as he who does not know where he is climbing to and he certainly always kept climbing, and thrust- ing those above him out of his way. Lord Manchester, Essex, * Cornish, p. 176. t Cornish’s Life of Cromwell, pp. 173-4. The italics are Mr. Cornish’s. IN IRELAND. 317 even Fairfax himself, had to submit to be shouldered aside when their turn came. As Oliver ascended the atmosphere cleared, revealing at last the throne of England within measurable dis- tance of him, and to that coveted object he directed all his after climbing. But there came a check : many of the leading men who had stood by him throughout and whose support he strug- gled hard to retain, had remained faithful to the Commonwealth, and were therefore not to be easily induced to aid him in over- turning it. The saints themselves, with whom he fraternized on the most familiar and equal terms, were not to be won over to his ambitious projects. They had gone out, they said, in the simplicity of their hearts to fight the Lord’s battles ; they had appealed to Him and He heard them ; they had pulled down monarchy with the king, and could they now build up what they had destroyed ? They had vowed to be true to the Common- wealth without king or kingship, and must they now, after having fought and prevailed, go hack to Egypt London was against raising Oliver to the coveted throne, as were many of his best friends and connections. Matters, how- ever, being sufficiently advanced. Colonel Wm. Jephson, one of the members who served for Ireland, moved in the House that Cromwell should be made King. This was meant to sound the feelings of members, and was by no means well received. When Cromwell heard of the proposal (for he had ceased to attend the House, having become too great for that ; but when he heard it from one of his creatures), he took an opportunity of gently reproving the Colonel for what he had done, saying to him, “ Get thee gone for a mad fellow as thou art but he soon after gave very substantial promotion to the Colonel, in the shape of a troop of horse for himself, and a foot company for his son, who was then only a scholar in Oxford.f The form of Procedure called the Instrument of Govern- ment,” which had been drawn up by Cromwell himself, was now thrown aside. It had grown too antiquated for his advanced views ; and a form called “ the humble Petition and Advice,” was substituted for it, which was so constructed as to suggest the * Burnet’s Hist, of his Own Time, Vol. I., p. 96. Among the saints, Oliver acted like one of themselves, and forbade them to uncover in his presence. Whitelock, speaking of meetings with himself and others, whilst the question of accepting or refusing the crown was undecided, says, “In these meetings, laying aside his greatness, he would be exceedingly familiar with us, and by way of diversion, would make verses with us, and everyone must try his fancy. He commonly called for tobacco, pipes, and a candle, and would now and then take tobacco himself. Then he would fall again to his serious and great business. ” (See note in Lingard, Vol. VIII., p. 250.) t Ludlow’s Memoirs, p. 583. 318 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH raising of him to the throne. By it there were to be two Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons and the other House. What was called the other House was to represent the House of Lords in reality, but not in Tiame for the present, and was to consist of seventy members, all to be named by Cromwell him- self. These two Houses were to have legislative authority under a single person. The word King was at first inserted in this form, but was withdrawn, probably by CromwelFs own desire, and a blank was left for the title the single person was to bear. Oliver felt he must be the single person^ and his hope and ardent desire was that the blank would be filled up with the word King. Meantime Sir Christopher Pack, an Alderman of London who had received knighthood from Crom- well, proposed in the House that an address be presented to the Protector, desiring him to assume the title and ofiice of King of England. This proposal was met with a fierce outburst of opposition at first, but the House calmed down after a little, and a motion was carried by a large majority to address the Pro- tector. Accordingly an address was drawn up, in which he was invited to assume the government of the three kingdoms with the style and title of King of England, according to the laws of the country. The “ Humble Petition and Address,” so drawn, was presented to the Protector, to be accepted or rejected by him without amendment, as was the constitutional course with a Parliamentary Bill. “ Cromwell’s conduct, always hard to be spelled, was, in this matter, more dark aud intricate than usual.”* He took time to consider. He held many private conferences with his friends, but the result was not encouraging. Not only did Lambert, now the acknowledged head of the army, oppose it, but Desborough, Cromwell’s brother-in-law, and Fleetwood, who had married his daughter Bridget, Ireton’s widow, and was then Lord Deputy of Ireland, told him plainly they would not support him in it. “ With these he entered into much discourse on the subject, and argued for it. He said it was a tempting of God to expose so many worthy men to death and poverty, when there was a certain way to secure them. The others insisted still on the oaths they had taken. He said those oaths were against the power and tyranny of Kings, but not against the four letters that made the word King. In conclusion they, believing from his discourse that he intended to accept of it, told him they saw great con- fusions would follow on it, and as they could not serve him, to set up the idol they had put down, and had sworn to keep down, Cornish, pp. 368 9. IN IRKLAND. 319 SO they would not engage in anything against him, but would retire and look on. So they offered him their commissions, since they were resolved not to serve a King ; he desired they would stay till they heard his answer.”"^ Oliver was very slow to give his answer, putting it off time after time, hoping, no doubt, for some favourable turn; but no such turn came. On the contrary, delay increased and strengthened opposition to his design. The known dislike of Lambert, Desborough, and Fleetwood to the project gave courage to the inferior officers, who formed themselves into a permanent council, and passed votes against the assumption of the title of King. Cromwell was waited on by about one hundred of them, who made him acquainted with their senti- ments. This sensibly impressed him. The officers followed up their success by coming before Parliament with a petition against the revival of monarchy, to abolish which they had, they said, hazarded everything; and as they now observed some people trying again to bring the nation under the old servitude, they begged the House would discountenance all such persons, and remain steadfast to the old cause, for the preservation of which, they declared themselves ready to lay down their lives. This petition astounded both Cromwell and the House. Oliver was foiled, so he sent for the members to Whitehall, and with great ostentation of self-denial, refused the title of King.f He spent a great deal of the public money in paying spies, for “ he laid down as a maxim to spare no cost or charge, in order to procure himself intelligence.’’^ When he understood what dealers the Jews were everywhere, and that their chief trade depended on news, as they dealt so much in money, he brought a number of them over to England, and gave them leave to build a synagogue, not through toleration, but because they would be “ good and sure spies for him.” Burnet says the Earl of Orrery told him the following anecdote : The Earl was, on a certain day, walking with Cromwell in one of the galleries of Whitehall, when a man almost in rags came in view. Cromwell at once dismissed Orrery and took the man into his closet. Some time afterwards Sir Jeremy Smith, who lay in the Downs with some ships, made a great prize by seizing a Dutch vessel carrying a large sum of money belonging to Spain, for the Spanish army in the Netherlands. Smith knew the exact spot in the vessel ♦ Burnet, Vol. I., p. 98. t Ludlow’s Memoirs, 591. t Burnet’s Own Times, Vol. T., p. 99. 820 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH where the treasure was, aud when he boarded her, he went directly and took possession of it. The next time Cromwell saw Orrery he told him it was the man in rags, whom he had seen a few days before, that gave him the information about the Dutch vessel. He knew everything that passed in the King’s [Charles the Second’s] little Court, and none of his spies was ever discovered but one. A gentleman once asked Cromwell’s leave to go abroad for some time, which was given on condition that he would not visit, or hold any communication with Charles Stuart. Charles the II. was then in Cologne. The gentleman broke his word with Cromwell, and arranged a night interview with Charles, who received the gentleman in the presence of three attendants only. He took his leave, having received a letter which he sewed within the crown of his hat. “ On his return to England he came with confidence to Cromwell, and being demanded by him if he had punctually performed his promise ; he answered that he had. But, said Cromwell, who was it that put out the candles when you spoke to Charles Stuart ? This unexpected question somewhat startled him ; but Cromwell proceeding, asked him what he said to him ; to which the gentleman answered that he said nothing at all to him. Then, said Cromwell, did he not send a letter by you ? The gentle- man denying that also, Cromwell took his hat, and having found the letter, he sent him immediately to the Tower.”* Although Cromwell abolished English liberty, and set up in its place his own absolute will, there are some things he did for which Englishmen ought to be grateful. It was chiefly during his Protectorate that England obtained the supremacy of the sea, which she has never lost. Blake, no doubt, deserves the chief credit of this, but he was well supported by Cromwell, whose heart and soul were in the work. He made England feared and respected by foreign nations ; so that his ambassadors were as much honoured as (if not more than) those that represented royalty. In 1672 when Charles the II. was seeking for causes of quarrel with the Dutch, he accused them of harbouring in their country rebels to his government. To this Borel, the Dutch ambassador, replied, that it was an old principle with the * One of the three persons present at the King’s interview with the above gentleman, was a spy of Cromwell’s named Manning. He had been sent to the King by Cromwell with a considerable sum of money, most of which he gave him, dividing the rest among his needy courtiers. He pretended to be a royalist sent to aid the King by friends, who, through fear of consequences, concealed their names. He was received into great favour, and was consequently one of the three attendants present at the interview. — Ludlow, pp. 608-9. IN IRELAND. 321 Dutch to receive all strangers who came to live amongst them, unless they were concerned in conspiracies against the persons of Princes. The King thereupon reminded him of the way in which he and his brother were treated when they were in Holland. Borel, “ with great simplicity,” answered : “ Ah, Sire, that was quite another thing. Cromwell was a great man, and made himself feared by land and sea.”^ “ This,” says Burnet, “ was very rough.” The King’s answer was, “ I shall also make myself feared in my turn;” but he was scarce as good as his word. Cromwell was very devoted to his family, and took every occa- sion to advance and enrich them, but with little result. His sons were good-for-nothing creatures ; his daughters, however, more especially Lady Falconbridge, were much superior to them in good sense and talents. It was thought that Cromwell at one time entertained the project of bringing back Charles the II. on the condition of marrying one of his daughters. During the ** heats” about making him King, Lord Orrery called on him and told him he had been in the city all day, whereupon Cromwell asked him what news he had heard there. The other answered that he was told he was in treaty with the King, who was to be restored and to marry his daughter. As Cromwell expressed no indignation at this. Lord Orrery concluded that he had often thought of that expedient, j* His hatred of popery was of the most intense kind ; he regarded himself as chosen to wreak God’s vengeance on papists, just as the leaders of God’s people under the old law were chosen to destroy His enemies.^ He seems to have digested a very comprehensive plan for fighting * “ Ha ! Sire, c’etait une autre chose ; Cromwell etait un grand homme, et il se faisait craindre et par terre et par mere.” — Burnet's History of his own Time, Vol. I., p. 115. t When his daughter, Mary, was married to Lord Falconbridge, in Novem- ber, 1G57, the event was announced in the Court Gazette, as follows : “ White- hall, Tuesday, November 17. Yesterday afternoon his highness went to Hampton-court, and this day the most illustrious lady, the lady Mary Cromwell, third daughter of his highness the lord Protector, was there married — to the most noble lord, Falconbridge, in the presence of their highnesses and many noble persons .” — Mercurius Politicus, Nov. 19. It was commonly believed that she had been previously married privately to Lord Falconbridge by Dr. Hewitt, an Episcopalian minister, whom her father beheaded for having been concerned in a royalist conspiracy. This, if true, would account for the eflforts of Mrs. Claypole, and all the Cromwell family, together with Lord Falcon- bridge, to save him. Neither were their efforts without fruit, for Oliver made the vast concession of allowing his head to be cut off instead of having him hanged ! X “ When the King was beheaded the native Irish were next punished by General Cromwell, who, they say, made his soldiers believe the Irish ought to be dealt with as the Canaanites in Joshua’s time.” — Anderson’s Royal Genea- logies, p. 786. London, 1736. X 822 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Rome with spiritual weapons, somewhat like her own. Burnet gives the following outline of it : “ Stoupe told me a great design Cromwell had intended to begin his Kingship with, if he had assumed it. He resolved to set up a council for the protes- tant religion, in opposition to the congregation de Propaganda fide at Rome. He intended it should consist of seven coun- cillors, and four secretaries for different provinces. These were; the first France, Switzerland, and the Valleys ; the Palatinate and the other Calvinists were the second ; Germany, the North, and Turkey were the third ; and the East and West Indies the fourth. The secretaries were to have £500 salary a piece, and to keep a correspondence everywhere, to know the state of religion all over the world, that so all good designs might be by their means protected and assisted. Stoupe was to have the first province. They were to have a fund of £10,000 a year at their disposal for ordinary emergencies, but to be further supplied as occasion should require it. Chelsea College was to be made up for them, which was then an old decayed building, that had been at first raised to be a college for controversy.” Burnet thought it a pity that such a “ noble design” w^as not carried out.* Cromwell called the battle of Worcester “ the crowning victory,” the word “crowning” having been used not, perhaps, without design. He was from that time observed to assume more dignity and importance, and he began to cast off his old friends for new ones. Sometime after he became Protector, those creatures w^hom he made use of to put forward his wishes without committing himself to them, began to speak of him as “ His Highness, the Lord Protector.” When he was obliged to refuse the title of King from the opposition it met wdth, his powers were enlarged under the new or second Protectorate, and his title was improved to “ Serene Highness.” He was also authorised to name his successor in that office. He played King as much as any one could, without the actual title, and the man, who with great show of zeal for liberty freed England from the personal government of Charles, soon began to govern with far greater tyranny than ever Charles did. “ He assembled and dismissed Parliaments with similar forms he would a court- martial. He tried four, and at his death he meditated a fifth. The difficulty he experienced in finding any representative body, however constituted, to sanction his usurpation, shows the unpopularity of his government, and the generally diffused * Burnet, p. 109. IN IRELAND. 323 sentiment in favour of a more legal and responsible administra- tion .... His government was a naked despotism, dependent entirely on the soldiery for support. Like all power grasped by violence, it could only be maintained by violence.”* There was much cruelty, not to say bloodthirstiness, in Cromwell’s nature. After victory had at length declared for the Parliament forces at Marston Moor, the victors continued the pursuit and slaughter of Kupert’s flying battalions. Cromwell was always cruel in the chace,” and, bloodhound-like, could not be drawn off. Fairfax did all he could to stay the slaughter. • Spare the poor deluded countrymen,’ he cried ; and rode all over the field to enforce his orders, forgetful of himself and his wounds, and never more merciful than in victory ; the prince of Puritan heroes.f” Sir Henry Slingsby and Dr. Hewitt were condemned for being concerned in a royalist plot. Both were connected with Crom- well’s family, and great sympathy was expressed for them. His two daughters, Lady Falconbridge and Mrs. Claypole, pleaded hard with their father to pardon them. Mrs. Claypole, his favourite daughter, used all her influence with him to forgive Dr Hewitt. It was no use; he had them both beheaded. Mrs. Claypole sickened and soon died ; all believed her death was hastened by Dr. Hewitt’s execution. Oliver himself not long after sickened and died very unexpectedly, his death havino- been hastened by Mrs. Claypole’s, whose bedside he never left for a whole fortnight before her death. What a miserable end- ing Three days before his death a hurricane, Wade says, swept over England, the greatest storm of wind that ever was known, and although it was felt in other places as well as in England, people connected it with Cromwell’s illness. His friends asserted that God would not remove so great a man from this world without previously warning the nation of its approaching loss ; his enemies, the cavaliers, maintained that the devils, “ the princes of the air.” were congregating over Whitehall that they might pounce upon his soul the moment it left his hody. The third day after this he had a lucid interval of considerable duration, and he asked Sterry, one of his chaplains, “ Is it possible to fall from grace ?” “ It is not possible,” replied Sterry. “ Then,” exclaimed the dying man, ‘‘ I am safe, for I know I was once in grace.” Besting on this answer, which tallied exactly with his own often expressed belief, he felt no * British History Chronologically Arranged. By John Wade, 3rd Ed., p. 205. t See Cornish’s Life of Cromwell, p. 74. i Cornish, p. 402. 824 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH necessity to pray for himself, but he began to pray for God s people ; his prayers for the most part expressing an indirect eulogium on himself. The opinion of a contemporary on Crom- well’s appearance and character is worthy of a place here. “ On September the 3rd [qr. 30th], died the Protector, Oliver Crom- well, one of the greatest and bravest men, had his cause been good, the world has produced. For his actions, I leave them to be inquired after in history ; for his person, having never seen him very near but once, at the audience of an ambassador in ■Whitehall, I can only give this description of him, that his figure did no ways promise what he performed. He was person- able [of good presence], but not handsome, nor did he look great or bold. He was plain in his apparel, and rather affected a negligence than a genteel garb. He had tears at his will, and was certainly the deepest dissembler on earth.’^* Viewed in the light of history, such a man, to my seeming, was Oliver Crom- well. He died on the 30th of September, 1658, in the 60th year of his age. It was the anniversary of his two great victories, Dunbar and Worcester; at the first he annihilated the great Scotch army, at the second the cause of the King and the Cavaliers was for the time crushed. Recently, more than one pretentious volume on Cromweiks career has been published by writers who seem to glory in following in the track of Carlyle. These books are not histories; they are rather prose epics with Oliver for a hero.f I do not include Mr. Cornish’s Life of the Protector in this category. Many would think him too lenient, and his w^ork has a tendency in that direction, but it is never- theless an honest and well balanced biography. If the Parlia- ment which Cromwell had summoned a short time before his death, but which he did not live to meet, would not have made him King, Mr. Cornish is of opinion that he would have assumed the title and office by his own authority. Having said so much of Cromwell’s career and character we must now go back to 1649, the year in which he entered upon his Irish campaign. * Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, p. 39. Elsewhere Sir John says, referring to the above audience, 1 scarce saw him very near but once about that time, (for being fearful of himself he was not easy of access), when he gave public audience to the Spanish ambassador, whom he received with as much distance and ceremooay as if he had been the greatest of Kings.” t One of the most masterly pieces of writing in Lingard’s England is his character of Cromwell ; it is severe enough, but cannot be called unjust. IN IRELAND. 325 CHAPTER XVIII. After the king’s death, when the Parliament began to look into the state of their affairs in Ireland, they found them in a very low condition, and had not Ormonde with supreme folly, resulting from his hatred of the Catholics, given up Dublin to Jones, they would not have had a place of any importance in it, but DerrjL Nor would they be in possession of that city, but for Ormonde’s refusing to accede to O’Neill’s terms until it was too late.* The Parliament resolved to send a numerous and well provided army to Ireland, and on the 28th of March, 1649, Cromwell was appointed its general -in-chief. This appointment was not made without much discussion and intrigue. The House consisted of two principal parties, the Presbyterians and the Independents, and a contention arose be- tween them as to whether Fairfax or Cromwell should be sent to Ireland. Fairfax was regarded as a Presbyterian and Cromwell always acted with the Independents. Waller, a Presbyterian General, was first of all proposed as commander of the expedition, and Lord -Deputy besides. Cromwell did not oppose this at first, and it was even thought he would be glad to be rid of Waller and his officers, whom he knew were not his friends ; but his plans were so secret and his movements so tortuous, that it was always nearly impossible to divine what he really wished, until his policy would be developed by time. When he found Waller demanding large supplies and a well disciplined army for the service, he began to fear danger from having a man of Waller’s reputation and military talents placed at the head of such a force. So he got his creatures in the House to cross” the design of appointing Waller. Alleging the extravagance of his demands in both men and money, they opposed the first as more than was necessary for the service, and the second as more than they could spare in view of other demands.! When this check was put to Waller’s appointment Cromwell caused Lam- bert to be proposed, as he was one of his firm supporters. His object in this is pretty evident. He did not wish to leave Eng- land at the time ; things continued in such confusion since the King’s death. The Levellers had grown very troublesome and * Inchiquin. t See Clarendon’s Rebellion, Vol. III., Part 1, p. 121. 826 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH even daegerous; and he feared liis absence in Ireland would give an opportunity to his enemies, who were not few, to work mis- chief against him. But when political “ heats” had cooled down, he changed his mind, and doubtless ambitioned the prestige it would give him to go as Generalissimo and Lord Lieutenant to Ireland, subdue it, and on his return be received as a conqueror. He was proposed for the post by men who knew his wishes, and it was accordingly offered to him. He affected to hesitate. At his request two officers from each corps received orders to meet him at Whitehall, and seek the Lord in prayer, and after a delay of two weeks, he went down to the House, bathed in tears and bowed down “ with his own unworthiness and disability to support so great a charge.” Still, “he resigned himself to their commands,” placing “ his absolute dependence upon God’s providence and blessing.”* Although Cromwell’s appointment was made at the end of March, 1649, he did not take his departure from London until towards the middle of July. The interval was employed in active preparations for his campaign, and in dealing some crushing blows to the Levellers. At length, on the 10th of that month he set out with more than regal splendour for Bristol. “He went forth in that state and equipage as the like hath hardly been seen ; himself in a coach with six gallant Flanders mares, whitish grey, and divers coaches accompanying him ; his life guard consisted of eighty gallant gentlemen, many of whom were colonels, and the meanest whereof was a commander or esquire, in stately habit, with trumpets sounding.”f Not bad for so humble a Christian. “ On the day of his departure his friends assembled at Whitehall; three ministers solemnly invoked the blessing of God on the arms of the saints ; and three officers, Goff, Harrison, and the Lord Lieutenant himself, expounded the Scriptures ‘ excellently well and pertinently to the occasion. ’ He arrived at Bristol on the I4th, where he remained nearly a month, for reasons not easily accounted for ; but the most pro- bable of them is that his onward movement was checked by the desertion of many of his men and the reluctance of most of them to embark. At length he set sail on the 13th of August with thirty-two ships, Ireton following two days later with the main body of the army in forty-two vessels. He wrote a letter to his daughter Dorothy, “ from aboard the John, 13th August, 1649.” It is very affectionate ; there is a * Ibid., 322; Lingard, Vol. VIII., p. 133. t Moderate Intelligencer of 10th July, 1649, in Cromwelliana. t Lingard, Vol. VIII., p. 1.34. IN IRELAND. 327 postscript to it about borrowing her father’s nag,” when she goes abroad, which is playful and even jocular. On this letter Carlyle remarks : — “ These gentle domesticities and pieties are strangely contrasted with the fiery savagery and iron grimness, stern as doom which meets us in the next set of letters we have from him.”^ Cromwell arrived in Dublin on the 15th August where, we are told, he was received with the acclamations of the people and the firing of the great guns. Having arrived at a convenient place, he made a speech which has not come down to us, but the purport of it was, “ That as God had brought him thither in safety, so he doubted not but by Divine Providence to restore them all to their just liberties and properties, much trodden down by those unblessed Papist- lloyalist combiuations and the injuries of war;” “and that all persons whose heart’s affections were real for the carrying out of this great work against the barbarous and bloodthirsty Irish and their confederates and adherents, and for the propagating of Christ’s Gospel, and establishing of Truth and Peace, and restor- ing of this bleeding nation of Ireland to its former happiness and tranquillity, — should find favour and protection from the Parliament of England and him, and withal receive such rewards and gratuities as might be answerable to their merits.” “ ‘ This speech,’ say the old newspapers, ‘ was entertained with great ap- plause by the people ; who all cried out, we will live and die with you.’ ”■[* “ After our army had refreshed themselves,” says Ludlow, “and were joined by the forces of Colonel Jones, they marched in all between sixteen and seventeen thousand horse and foot.”J One of the first things Cromwell did on his arrival in Dublin was to publish a Declaration against robbery and pillage, and against cruelty to the country people. This declaration was strictly enforced and, besides being so just in itself, gave con- fidence to the people to come to the army with provisions in such abundance that no army could have been more plentifully sup- plied with all necessaries than Oliver’s. He remained 16 days in Dublin to rest his army, and await the coming of Ireton who did not arrive till ten days after him. He began his march to Drogheda on the 31st of August, and came before it on the 3rd of September, his fortunate day. I * Letters and Speeches, p. 39. 3 Vol. Ed. t Carlyle : Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches, Vol. IT., pp. 39-40. No doubt Oliver measured the value of this applause by the opinion he expressed to Lam- bert on their way to Scotland about a year later. See p. 313, J Memoirs, p. 301. 328 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH pass over any detailed account of the operations before and within the town, as these are very fully given in most of the histories of the period.* On his arrival, Cromwell sent a sum- mons to Sir Arthur Aston,t the then Governor. It ran as follows : — ** September 10th, 1649. “ SlE, — Having brought the army belonging to the Parliament of England before this place, to reduce it to obedience, to the end effusion of blood may be prevented, I thought fit to sum- mons you to deliver the same into my hands to their use. If this be refused, you will have no cause to blame me. I expect your answer, and rest Your servant, “ 0. Cromwell. This summons, which is rather suggestive than outspoken, reads fair enough, with the exception that Cromwell could not justly throw the blame of the bloodshed that might result from defending the town on Aston, who had quite as good a right to defend it as Cromwell had to attack it. So the bloodshed must be divided between them. Aston having refused to accede to Cromwell’s demand, the latter began active hostilities by playing with his great guns on the part of the wall near St. Mary’s Church, on the South side of the town. ‘^On the 10th of this instant,” he writes to Lenthall the Speaker, ‘‘having beat down the corner tower and opened two reasonable good breaches in the East and South wall, about five o’clock in the evening we began the storm.’^ “The garrison fought with extreme courage. Twice after forcing their way into the town the storming party were beaten back through the breach. The third time, as the light was waning, Cromwell led them up in person, forced Aston upon his inner lines, stormed those lines in turn, and before night fell was master^ of Drogheda.”^ The “ no quarter” carnage of Drogheda lives in tradition as well as in our annals ; and the “ Curse of Cromwell on you,” continues to be a malediction in Ireland, and is likely to die out only with the Irish race. The promise of quarter and the breach of that promise through * See Cromwell in Ireland, by Eev. Denis Mnrphy, S.J. Dalton’s History of Drogheda, &c. t "rhe name is variously written Aston, Ashton, and by the English officer of Clottworthy’s regiment, Austin. X Froude’s English in Ireland, Vol. I., p. 124. Cromwell “stormed the third time, himself in the head of them, till he went to the breach, and then stepped by under the wall to see his men enter, which, after a hard fight, they did.” History of the Wars of Ireland by a British Officer in Sir J. Clott worthy’s Regi- ment, p. 87. IN IR INLAND. 329 Cromwell’s later command of “ No quarter,” call for a dispas- sionate examination, as far as one can be dispassionate in presence of such savage butchery. It is clear that Cromwell was resolved to strike a blow in Drogheda that would terrify Ireland ; and for this he prepared the garrison in the above summons to Aston. The giving or refusing of quarter in war seems to depend primarily on the will of the Commander-in-Chief, but cases must arise in which it ought to be given in his absence, and ought to be ratified by him. It is contrary to the practice of civilized warfare to refuse quarter unless under very exceptional circumstances ; and it would be unwise as well as bloodthirsty to tell the enemy at the outset that unless he yields at once he will receive no quarter ; for in that case he would be driven to adopt the same course, which would lead to such carnage as should be called murder rather than warfare. Although Oliver does not plainly threaten this extreme course in the above sum- mons, he, with his usual cunning, leaves it to be inferred, and the inference was verified by what actually happened. A commander can issue the order — “ No quarter,” but he must submit to be judged by the circumstances in which he does so. One who writes with authority on this subject, says, “The refusal of quarter is a terrible aggravation of the horrors of war, and is only at all justifiable towards an enemy who has been guilty of atrocious cruelty himself, or of some flagrant breach of faith.” As no terms were made by the garrison, there could be no breach of faith; and throughout the siege and storming there is not one act of cruelty charged against them. There is no little confusion in the different authorities, as to the giving of quarter and the order of “no quarter” at the storming and, we may well add, the Sack of Drogheda. Inchi- quin, writing to Ormonde from Castlejordan, on the 15th of September, says, “Many men and some officers have made their escape out of Drogheda . . . some out of every regiment have come unto me all of whom, he says, declare that “ no man had quarter with Cromwell’s leave.”* This most probably refers to the quarter given by Cromwell’s officers at the breach, for there can be no doubt that at some period of the contest there quarter was promised to the defenders, if they would lay down their arms. This they did, and for a certain time received the quarter promised, as will be seen by the authorities hereafter quoted. 1. The author of Cambrensis Eversus says Cromwell could Aphorism. Discovery, Vol. II., Preface XXVITI. 330 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH not take the town until its defenders had received a promise of their lives from some person of high rank in his army.* * * § 2. The Marquis of Ormonde, to whom some of the fugitives from Drogheda must have also gone, says in his letters to the King and Lord Byron, “ that on this occasion Cromwell exceeded himself and anything he had ever done in breach of faith and bloody inhumanity ; and that the cruelties exercised there for five daysf after the town was taken, would make as many several pictures of inhumanity as are to be found in the book of martyrs, or in the relation of Amboyna.”J “ All the officers and soldiers of Cromwell’s army,” says Carte, “promised quarter to such as would lay down their arms, and performed it as long as any place held out, which encouraged others to yield. But when they had once all in their power, and feared no hurt that could be done to them, Cromwell being told by Jones that he had now all the flower of the Irish army in his hands, gave orders that no quarter should be given ; so that his soldiers were forced, many of them against their will, to kill their prisoners.”§ 3. As far as I can see my way through this “ quarter” and “ no quarter” question, I think there was an intention from the beginning of the attack to give no quarter. As I have said above, this intention is foreshadowed in Cromwell’s summons to Aston, and it receives strong confirmation from his letter to Bradshaw, dated September 16th, 1649. He there says : — “ The enemy had made three retrenchments, both to the right and left, where we ent^ed; all which they were forced to quit; being thus entered, we refused them quarter, having the day before summoned the town.’' So that the summons to Aston was, in Oliver’s opinion, a sufficient justification for refusing quarter. The quarter spoken of above, therefore, was given by his officers onl}" for a time and for apurpose.|| * Cambrensis Eversus, Vol. III., p. 187, Bub. Ed. t How could it continue five days when the storming began on the 11th, and the army marched from Drogheda on the 15th ? It may be explained in this way ; on the departure of the army several individuals who had succeeded in concealing themselves, crept out of their hiding-places, but did not elude the vigilance of the garrison by whom they were put to the sword. — Bates’s Bise and Progress, part ii., p. 27, quoted by Dr. Lingard in Appendix, SSS., Vol. X Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. II., p. 84. Echard’s History of England, Vol. I., p. 676. § Carte ib. Amboyna, the principal of the Molucca isles, was taken from the Portuguese by the Dutch in 1605. The English factors were tortured and put to death there, 17 Feb., 1623-4, by the Dutch, on an accusation of a conspiracy to expel them from the island. Cromwell compelled the Dutch to give a sum of money to the descendants of the sufferers. II It appears that this kind of quarter was given in other places besides Drogheda. “ If the promise was made by the officer, they were told it was not IN IRELAND. 331 . 4. From the above extract of Cromwell’s letter to Bradshaw it appears that he gave the order of no quarter as soon as his troops succeeded in entering the town, and hence it is evident that the order was repeated with special reference to Aston and the officers and soldiers who were in the Millmount, for Aston was a brave soldier, and he would not have retired to the Millmount until he saw the town was taken. Cromwell’s own words sustain this view : he says, “ the enemy retreated divers of them into the Millmount, a place very strong and difficult of access; .... the governor. Sir Arthur Ashton, and divers con- siderable officers being there, our men getting up to them,^^^?"^ ordered by me to 'put them all to the swords* Lingard thinks the Millmount was delivered up on promise of quarter, which was broken by the above order of Cromwell. He is, deli- berately, it would seem, confused and obscure in his despatches from Drogheda, in none of which does he say one word as to how the Millmount was taken. It was very strong — in fact the fortress of the town — and was defended by 250 picked men with the governor at their head. It could have been defended against any number brought against it, as long as provision and ammunition lasted; yet it seems to have been taken without any fighting ! Hence there is great reason to believe that Dr. Lingard’s surmise is correct, that quarter was promised and afterwards withdrawn, when the place was delivered up. This view is strongly corroborated by Inchiquin’s letter to Ormonde quoted above. In it he s^ys, “ that the governor was killed in the Mill Mounte, after quarter given by the officer that came first there.”t he but the Colonel who had the power of grantiog such securities ; but if the Colonel had made the promise, and they surrendered to him, then it was not he but the officer who was commanded to sign terms of capitulation ; even though the officer had promised security if they surrendered, the victims were informed that none but the Commander-in-Chief was vested with such authority.” — Cambrensis Eversus, Vol. III., pp. 185-7. So that by this chicanery the promise of quarter was ignored whenever it was thought convenient to do so. Very important light is thrown on this “quarter” and “no quarter” question by what occurred later on at the Siege of Limerick, as recorded in the following entry : — “ Monday, 16th June, 1651. By a great shott made at the castle below the island, 3 of the enemy being slaine and others wounded, the rest betook themselves to their cotts, but being shot at by our musquetiers they came to the shoare, who were after put to the sword : of these there were 14. This being done by command of Coll. Totthill, they having quarter given them by the souldiers, he was at a Martiall Court put therefore from his command.” — Diary of Par- liamentary Forces. Aphor. Disc., Vol. II., p. 232. The italics in the extract are mine. — J. O’R. The above proceedings under court-martial were instituted under Ireton’s special directions. * Letter to Lenthal. t Aston’s wooden leg has been mentioned by all who have written about the storm of Drogheda. He fell from his horse when he was governor of Oxford, S32 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Cromwell, in his letter to Bradshaw was careful to say nothing about any of the inhabitants having been killed. “I do believe,” he writes, “ we put to the sword the whole number of the defendants ... I do not think thirty of the whole number escaped with their lives, those who did are in safe custody for Barbadoes.” Thomas Wood, eldest brother of Anthony Wood, author of Athence OxonienseSy was in Ingoldsby’s regiment at the storming and Sack of Drogheda. He v;as a student of Oxford, and was one of the first who threw off his gown “and ran to Edgehill battle.” He was deeply engaged in the Cavalier plot in the year 1648, and to avoid being taken and hanged for it, he fled to Ireland, where he met his former college friend, Henry Ingoldsby, then a Colonel in Cromwell’s army, and became a lieute- nant in his regiment. After the taking of Drogheda, “he returned to Oxford to take up his arrears at Ch. Church and to settle his other affairs, at which time, being often with his mother and his brethren, he would tell them of the most terrible assaulting and storming of Tredagh [Drogheda], wherein he himself had been engaged. He told them that three thousand at least, besides some women and children, were, after the assailants had taken part, and afterivards all the town, put to the sword on the 11th broke his leg, and so had to get a wooden one. He was reputed to be a miser, and it was said that for safety he had stowed away a sum of money in the hollow part of his wooden leg. When Cromwell’s soldiers had killed him or had put him hors de combat, they fought among themselves for possession of the leg, but finding it empty, they battered in his skull with it, and “ hacked” his body to pieces with indignation at the disappointment. In the earlier part of his letter to Lenthal, dated a day later, he repeats substantially the same infor- mation, but towards the end he says : “ It is remarkable that these people at first set up the Mass in some places of the town that had been monasteries ; but afterwards grew so insolent, that the last Lord's day before the storm, the Protestants were thrust out of the great church, called St. Peter’s, and they had public Mass there,” — a dreadful crime in Oliver’s eyes, and hence the speedy retribution which he relates in the next , sentence with evident glee : “And in this very place near one thousand of them were put to the sword, flying thither for safety. I believe all their fryers were knockt on the head promiscuously, but two. The one was father Peter Taaff, brother of Lord Taaff, whom the soldiers took the next day and made an end of ; the other was taken in the Round Tower under the repute of a lieute- nant, and when he understood the officers in that tower had no quarter, he confessed he was a fryer, but that did not save him.^’ The thousand slaughtered in St. Peter’s church were not armed defenders, they were helpless townspeople, hut that did not save them. “ They had set up the Mass that was justification abundant to Oliver and the Puritan Parliament of England for their slaughter. The Catholics of Drogheda did set up the Mass to this extent that when they had closed their gates, “ making their first appeal to heaven, Mass was solemnly celebrated in St. Mary’s Convent,” which had been founded three hundred years before for the celebration of Mass. And surely the good people of Drogheda never stood in greater need of making their peace with heaven, and solemnly offering up the Spotless Victim for their sins, than when they heard Cromwell was approaching their gates. IN IRELAND. 333 and 12th of September, 1649, at which time S*’- Arthur Aston, the governour, had his brains beat out, and his body hack’d to pieces. He told them, that when they were to make the w’ay up to the loft and galleries in the church, and up to the tower where the enemy had fled, each of the assailants would take up a child, and use it as a buckler of defence, when they ascended the steps, to keep themselves from being shot or brain’d. After they had kill’d all in the church, they went into the vaults underneath, where all the flower and choicest of the women and ladies had hid themselves. One of those, a most handsome virgin, arrai’d in costly and gorgeous apparel, kneeled down to Tho. Wood with tears and prayers to save her life. And being struck with a profound pitie took her under his arme, went with her out of the church, with intentions to put her over the works to shift for herself, but a soldier perceiving his intentions ran her through with his sword. Whereupon Mr. Wood seeing her gasping, took away her money, jewells, &c., and flung her down over the works, &c.”* “ For successive days during which this butchery continued, neither place, sex, religion or age was respected ; youths and virgins, infants as well as those feeble with j^ears, were, every- where slaughtered by the barbarians. Four thousand Catholic men (to say nothing of the vast multitude of religious, women, young people of both sexes and infants), fell by the swords of those impious rebels, during the sack of that city.”t Cromwell’s own view of the taking of Drogheda was that God, rather than himself or his soldiers, did the work. In his letter to Bradshaw, he says, “This hath been a marvellous great mercy.” And again : “I wish that all honest hearts may give the glory of this to God alone, to whom indeed the praise of this mercy belongs, for instruments they were very inconsiderable throughout.” To Speaker Lenthal he writes : — “ I am per- swaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches who have imbued their hands with so much innocent blood.” There is no truth whatever in this assertion. The soldiers who defended Drogheda against Cromwell were in no way connected with the so-called massacre of 1641 : neither had the people of Drogheda any hand in it, that town being * Athense Oxonienses. London : 1815, Ed. Bliss, Vol. I., pp. xix, xx, quoted in Aphor. Discovery, Vol. II., p. 275. Obs. — “Ran her through with his sword” is not Mr. Wood’s expression, but the actual way in which she was murdered is too horrible to be placed before human eyes. t Propugnaculum Cathol. Veritatis, lib. iv. c. 14, p. 678. By Father Bruodin, whom Dr. Lingard calls “An Irish friar of great eminence and authority in the Franciscan Order.” — See Lingard, Vol. VIII. Appendix, p. 315. 334 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH then held successfully, and defended against Sir Phelim O’Neill by Sir Henry Tichborne, an English Officer. In another part of the letter he says : — “ And now give me leave to say how it comes to pass that this work was wrought ; it was set upon some of our hearts that a great thing should be done, not by power or might, but by the Spirit of God ; and is not this clear ? That which caused your men to storm so courageously, it was the Spirit of God, who gave your men courage, and took it away again, and gave the enemy courage, and took it away again, and gave your men courage again, and therewith this happy success; and therefore it is good that God alone have all the glory.” Had Oliver been an apostolic missionary to the heathen, he would not have written home more humbly or unctuously about his labours, than he does regarding the no-quarter slaughter of Drogheda. Others, however, have looked at the storming and sack of that town from a different standpoint. I give below the opinions of some Protestant historians on the subject. “ Though quarter had been promised by his officers,” says Mr. Taylor, “ Cromwell refused to ratify the agreement, and ordered the garrison to be put to the sword. The inhuman massacre was continued during the two following days. Thirty of the brave defenders of Drogheda alone survived ; and these, by a dubious mercy, were sold as slaves to the plantations. The excuse for this atrocious barbarity was the necessity of striking immediate terror into the Irish in order to prevent them from future opposition. It failed, as such detestable policy always must; and, had Owen O’Neill lived, the effects would have been the direct contrary.”* “ For five days this hideous execution was continued with every circumstance of horror. A number of ecclesiastics was found within the walls ; and Cromwell, as if immediately com- missioned to execute divine vengeance on these ministers of idolatry, ordered his soldiers to plunge their weapons into the helpless wretches.”t “The place,” writes Warner, “was immediately taken by storm ; and though his officers and soldiers had promised quarter to all that would lay down their arms, yet Cromwell ordered that * History of the Civil Wars in Ireland. By W. C. Taylor, A.B., Trin. Coll. Dublin, Vol. 11. , p. 21. tThe History of Ireland from the Invasion. By Thomas Leland, D.D., Seuior Fellow of Trinity College, and Prebendary of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, Vol. ILL, p. 350, 4to. Ed. IN IRELAND. 335 no quarter should be given, and none was given accordingly. The slaughter continued all that day and the next, and the governour and four colonels were killed in cool blood : ‘ which extraordinary severity,’ says Ludlow — ‘I presume was used to discourage others from making opposition.’ But are men to divest themselves of humanity, and to turn themselves into devils, because policy may suggest that they will succeed better as devils than as men ! Mr. Carlyle has had his say about the sack of Drogheda, and I shall close the account of it by quoting the view of that great worshipper of Oliver’s. “ Oliver’s proceedings here,” he says, “have been the theme of much loud criticism and sibylline execration ; into which it is not our place to enter at present. We shall give these Irish letters of his in their own natural figure, and without any commentary whatever. . To those who think that a land overrun with sanguinary Quacks, can be healed by sprinkling it with rose-water, these letters must be very horrible. Terrible Surgery this; but it Surgery and Judg- ment, or atrocious murder merely ? That is a question which should be asked ; and answered. Oliver Cromwell did believe in God’s Judgments ; and did not believe in the rose-water plan of Surger}^ which, in fact, is the editor’s case too.”t Surgery is an important branch of the healing art, but what curing or healing was done by Cromwell’s no-quarter Surgery in Drogheda, the great philosopher, Thomas, saith not ; and there are many who think that instead of healing, he only left gaping wounds which no after-Surgery has been able to close. Immediately after the capture and sack of Drogheda, Crom- well sent Col. Chidley Coote northwards. He appeared before Dundalk, and it fell without a blow. A part of Cromwell’s army, probably led by himself, went westwards to Trim, but the place had been abandoned by Major Ponsonby before his arrival, and in such haste too, that Ormonde’s order to burn it, should Drogheda be taken, was not carried out. Carlingford and Newry surrendered to Venables, as did Lisburn and Belfast. Sir Charles Coote, governor of Derry, took Coleraine, putting the garrison to the sword as was his habit. So that by the end of September every place of importance in Ulster, except Carrick- fergus, was in the hands of Cromwell’s forces. He himself pro- ceeded southwards, marching by the seashore to keep his com- * The History of the Rebelliou and Civil War in Ireland, by Ferdo. Warner, LL.D. Second Ed. p. 470. t Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches, by Thomas Carlyle, Vol. II., n. 45. 3 Vol. Ed. 336 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH munications open. He took Col. Michael Jones with him as his lieutenant, leaving Colonel Hewsou in command of Dublin. “Wexford being his next design, he wrote to the inhabitants, and courted them to submit to his authority and to quit the royal interest, and that they should enjoy all their possessions and fortunes, and be as well used as any others under his power.”* So wrote the man who gloried in knocking priests on the head in Drogheda, and in slaughtering more than a thousand of all ages and sexes in St. Peter’s Church, because they were Papists. All the strong places between Dublin and Wexford — Kilnacarrick, Limbrick,f Ferns, Enniscorthy — cleared out before the all-conquering Oliver, or yielded to his summons. On Saturday, the 29th of September, Cromwell’s fleet ap- peared off the harbour of Wexford, and on the 1st of October, he and his army encamped before the walls. For our purpose, there is no need to dwell at much length on the scenes enacted at Wexford. It was Drogheda repeated. Wexford was strong, and the towns-people showed a disinclina- tion to admit a garrison for their defence, and they are blamed, in this, for pride and too much self-reliance, but it is hard to see on whom they could safely rely except themselves. Ormonde was unworthy of their trust, for his whole career proved he hated the religion which he had professed at the age of fifteen, and which it was their object and sacred duty to defend. He persistently opposed every concession to the Catholics ; he pro- fessed himself so devoted to the King, that he was pre- pared to make any sacrifice for his interest but one. He declared he would sooner retire from his service than grant to the Catholics the concessions which the King not only em- powered him, but wished and all but entreated him to grant.J And who were his lieutenants ? The two principal were Taaffe and Preston, whose incapacity, or worse, lost to the Confederation the best armies they had ever put into the field, and whose mean, unpatriotic jealousies caused them to thwart, in everyway they could, Owen O’Neill, the single man who was capable of * Gale’s History of Corporations in Ireland, Appendix CXXV : London, 1834, Quoted in “ Cromwell in Ireland,” p. 140. f This was a castle belonging to Lord Esmonde, who in conjunction with Parsons robbed the O’Bymes of their property, the Ranelaghs, as we have noted in the earlier part of this work. % See Birch’s Inquiry and other works quoted in the earlier part of this volume. Ormonde, for political reasons, was willing to give the Catholics certain concessions during good hehav{our,'h'\x\, was always opposed to giving them legal recognition. IN IRELAND. 337 carrying to a successful issue the cause in which they had engaged. Furthermore, Inchiquin had become his trusted friend, an unprincipled soldier, who had repeatedly changed sides, the Cromwell of Cashel, who would knock priests and religious on the head with as much bloodthirsty coolness as Oliver himself. I have said above, that “the Curse of Crom- well” is still a malediction in Ireland. Something of the same kind exists in Munster with regard to Inchiquin. Morrogh O’Brien, Lord Inchiquin, was known far and wide as Morrogh- na-tothaine — Morrogh the Incendiary — because he fired every roof-tree he met in his desolating progress. There is a tradition about him, that he was a terrible looking man ; and in the South, down to our days, if any one has a fierce, forbidding, truculent aspect, the common saying is, “He looks Jike Morrogh.” His soldiers were in open mutiny against him, their wish being to join the Parliament forces; so that they would be more likely to open the gates of Wexford to Cromwell than to fight him.* Such were the relievers of Wexford, whom Wexford feared to trust. Cromwell, to be sure, sat down before their town, reek- ing with the blood of Drogheda : but who was his lieutenant ? Colonel Michael Jones, to whom Ormonde had delivered up Dublin rather than confide it to the Confederation, even though represented by his devoted friends Preston, Taaffe, and Castle- haven. But they were Catholics, whilst Jones, although a puritan rebel, had (to Ormonde) the supreme advantage of being a Protestant.f The hesitation of the inhabitants of Wexford as to whether they would defend the town or deliver it up on terms, is very plainly stated by Colonel David Sinnott in his letter to the Mar- quis of Ormonde ; he says : — “I find no resolution in the towns- men to defend the town, but to speak truth nakedly, I find and perceive them rather inclined to capitulate, and take conditions of the enemy ; in so much as I cannot as yet find admittance for * This feeling is strongly expressed in a pamphlet published a couple of weeks after the taking of Wexford, but evidently drawn up before that event. It is called “ The Remonstrance and Resolution of the Protestant army of Munster now in Corke.” It is signed by more than thirty officers, twelve of them being Colonels and L. Colonels. There occurs in it this passage, which indicates its spirit — “ The late unhappy peace was no other but a meere submission of the Protestant Religion and the English Interest in this dominion, under the slavish and barbarous yoake of the Romish Church and Irish Anarchy.” “ Printed October 23rd, 1649,” at London. Halliday FamphletSy Box 62, Pamphlet 28, R. I. Academy. Inchiquin himself, it may be noted, had a great deal to do with the making of this peace. t It is the common opinion that Ireland was lost to Charles by the treachery of Ormonde in delivering up Dublin to Jones ; for this Jones amply repaid him at Rathmines, Drogheda, and Wexford. 338 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH those few assigned hither for the defence of the place, nor a muster of the townsmen to know what strength they have for the defence thereof, in which respect, seeing 1 am not able to do his Majesty any service, I am resolved to leave the town, without I find tbeir undelayed conformity/’* Three days after Sinnott had written this letter, negociations were opened between himself and Cromwell ; the result of which was that four Commissioners were sent out to treat about the terms on which the town would be delivered up. One of the four was William Stafford, who betrayed the Castle to Cromwell. After some parleying, Sinnott sent out conditions on which he was ready to give possession of the town and Castle to Cromwell. Oliver expressed strong indignation at those conditions,“ which,” as he says, “ for their abominableness, manifesting also the impu- dency of the men,” he enclosed to Speaker Lenthal, apparently as a kind of curiosity. Cromwell detained the four Commis- sioners whilst he was preparing his answer. By that answer he granted life and liberty to the soldiers; life, but not liberty, to the commissioned officers ; and freedom from pillage to the inhabitants. This latter concession, however, was subject to the decision of Parliament with regard to their real property. He demanded an immediate acceptance of these terms, and the delivery to him of six hostages within an hour. But Stafford, the commandant of the Castle, having been, what Cromwell in his despatch calls, fairly betrayed the Castle into his hands. Of this Sinnott, the governor, knew nothing, and whilst he and the townspeople were anxiously awaiting their com- missioners with Cromwell’s answer, they saw to their horror and consternation Oliver’s colours planted on the Castle, which had been thrown open to him by Stafford, who seems to have gone into that stronghold with them, probably to prevent resistance from his own men. After this a paper containing the conditions was delivered to the other three Commissioners, “ who had not the hearts to return to the town.” Thus Sinnott and the other authorities were left in ignorance of Cromwell’s decision. With regard to the answer to the proposition, he himself says it had no effect. “ Few,” he adds, “ whilst I was preparing it, studying to preserve the town from plunder, that it might be of more use to you and your Army, — the Captain, who was one of the Com- missioners, being fairly treated, yielded up the Castle to us ; upon the top of which our men no sooner appeared, but the * Aphor. Disc., Yol. II., p. 282. Letter dated Wexford, last day of Septem- ber, 1649. Sinnott, who was Lieutenant-Colonel of Preston’s regiment, was admitted into the town only the day before, when Cromwell’s ships appeared in the offing. IN IRELAND. 339 enemy quitted the walls of the Town ; which our men perceiving, ran violently upon the town, with their ladders and stormed it.”* Was not Oliver to the fore ? and had he not authority enough to prevent the slaughter, if he chose ? 0 yes, but he saw “ that God would not have it so wherefore, “ he thought it not good nor just, to restrain off the soldiers from their right of pillage, nor from doing execution on the enemy.^f There was no right of pillage ; there was no right of execution ; there was no right of attacking the town until his reply to the propositions had been delivered and rejected, which of course did not happen, as the three commissioners to whom it was delivered did not go back to the town. Oliver was always tremulously fearful lest men should appropriate to themselves the glory which was due to God alone. So he concludes his despatch to the Government in these words : — “ Thus it has pleased God to give into your hands this other mercy, for which, as for all, we pray God may have all the glory. Indeed, your instruments are poor and weak, and can do nothing but through believing, and that is the gift of God also.”i A modern historian indignantly asks: “Did then the fanatic believe that perfidy and cruelty were gifts of God ? for at Wexford he could not plead, as at Drogheda, that his summons had been contemptuously rejected.” How could he, seeing that his summons was never delivered ?§ In places sacked, as Wexford was, it is almost impossible to find out the exact number of the slain. In the “English Official Chronicle of Irish Wars,” we find this entry : — “On the IJth October, his Excellency took Wexford hy storm, and in it 51 peeces of ordnance, besides those in ships, 40 vessels in the harbour, great store of plunder, 2,000 were slaine of Ormonde's soldiers in the town.”|| Cromwell himself says, “ I believe in all there was lost of the enemy not many less than two thousand, and I believe not twenty of yours killed, from first to last of the siege.”^ Another account says that Cromwell ‘‘ entered the * Letter to Lenthal of I4th October, 1649, written from Wexford, t Letter of 16th October. i Quoted in App. 159, Aphor. Disc,, Vol. III. \ Letter of October 14th, to Lenthal. || Cary’s Memorials, Vol. II., p. 180. Dr. Lingard calls Cromwell’s official account of the taking of Wexford, “ a matchless specimen of craft and mysti- fication.” See Appendix, SSS. Hist. Eng., Vol. Vlll., pp. 316 & 317. H A shot, it is said, was fired from the Castle against Cromwell, but this was only a ruse to show some appearance of resistance. “ One onely culverin was discharged from the Castle, but wittingly so high, that it could do no hurte, which Cromwell admiringe, said, ‘What 1 did the rogue shutt with bullett?’ ” Aphor. Disc., Vol. II., p. 54. Permission, we may suppose, was given to Staf- ford to fire blank cartridge by way of resistance ; but as the sound of blank. 340 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH town and put man, woman, and child to the sword, where among the rest the Governor lost his life, and others of the soldiers and inhabitants to the number of 1,500 persons.”* * Dr. French, the Bishop of Ferns, writes of the sack of Wexford: — “On that fatal day, 11th October, 1649, 1 lost everything I had. Wexford, my native town, then abounding in merchandize, ships, and wealth, was taken at the sword’s point by that plague of England, Crom- well, and sacked by an infuriated soldiery. Before God’s altar fell sacred victims, holy priests of the Lord. Of those who were seized outside the church, some were scourged, some thrown into chains and imprisoned, while others were hanged or put to death by cruel tortures. The blood of the noblest of our citizens was shed, so that it inundated the streets. There was hardly a house that was not defiled with carnage and filled with wailing.”*!* Among the slain was a number of women and children, amounting to two, or as some say, to three hundred, who had assembled round the great cross in the market place, expecting it would be to them a sacred refuge. They had often knelt under its shadow seeking grace and mercy from Him whom it represented ; they were murdered clinging to it. Poor victims ! they little thought the sign of salvation to which they clung was regarded by Cromwell’s puritan soldiers as “ the mark of the beast,” and was contemptuously desecrated and broken into fragments by them wherever they met it.J The Franciscan Fathers seem to cartridge is easily detected, Stafford probably loaded with ball, that the shot should have the proper ring in it, and fired high to avoid doing injury. Hence, Cromwell’s question. * Gale’s Corporation System in Ireland, App. p. cxxvi. t Letter to Papal Nuncio, dated Antwerp, January, 1673. Original given in Spicilegium Ossoriense, Vol. I. Letter CCLXL, p. 510. Translation in Rev. Dr. Moran’s Historical Sketch of the Persecutions, &c., p. 32. Duffy, Dublin. Dr. French was lying ill in a neighbouring town, when Wexford was sacked. X MacGeoghegan’s Ireland, Dublin Ed., p. 574. See also Lingard’s England, Vol. Yin., Appendix, p. 318, and “Cromwell in Ireland,” p. 167 ; where the question of the slaughter at the Market cross is discussed. This fiendish bar- barism is made the occasion of an unbecoming sneer by a late writer : “ At any rate,” he says, ‘ ‘the conspicuous absence of the beautiful women of Wexford, both from the invective of the Prelates [at Clonmacnoise] and from all direct con- temporary testimony quite justifies us in believing that when Oliver wrote these words [a reply to the prelates], that myth was quite unknown to him.” — “ Oliver Cromwell: the Man and his Mission.” By J. Allanson Picton, p. 307. Cassell & Co., London, Paris and New York, 1883. If Cromwell had a Mission, it is a pity Mr. Picton does not tell us what it was, and by whom given. The most distinguished ladies of Drogheda were slaughtered in the crypt of St. Peter’s, and positively we could have never heard of that slaughter, but that there was one Thomas Wood, an officer in Cromwell’s army, who witnessed it, and related it to his friends in England, when he returned home. Nor would that fact have sent it down tons, only that Anthony, his brother, put itintohis Oxonienses. Thus it was preserved by the merest chance. Here is what Cromwell him* IX IRELAND. 341 have been specially marked out for extermination. “On the 11th of October, 1649, F. Francis Stafford writes, seven friars of our order, all men of extraordinary merit, and natives of the town, perished by the sword of the heretics. Some of them were killed kneeling before the altar, and others whilst hearing con- fessions. Father Raymond Stafford, holding a crucifix in his hand, came out of the church to encourage the citizens, and even preached with great zeal to the infuriated enemies themselves, till he was killed by them in the Market Place.”* * * * § The slaughter consequent upon the betrayal of Wexford was not confined to the town ; it was continued in the suburbs and neighbourhood ; for the Puritans assumed they had a mission in Ireland, to kill Catholics wherever they met them ; and it cannot be denied that they laboured most zealously in their vocation.f “ The Parliament Party,” writes Lord Clarendon, “ who had heaped so much reproaches and calumnies upon the King for his clemency to the Irish; .... grounded their own authority and strength upon such foundations as were inconsis- tent with any toleration of the Roman Catholic religion, and even with any humanity to the Irish nation, and more especially to these of the old native extraction, the whole race whereof they had, upon the matter, sworn to extirpate.”* Ireton was sent by Cromwell to attack Duncannon fort. In this he failed, owing to a clever piece of strategy on the part of Lord Castlehaven who sent eighty horses with saddles and bridles into the fort by water, in face of the enemy. For those horses the Governor, Captain Wogan, found riders who so alarmed the besiegers by a sally, that they withdrew.§ self writes about the slaughter of Wexford : — “ When they were come into the market place [meaning those who were in the town], the enemy making a stiff resistance, our forces brake them, andpw^ all to the sword that came in their way.” Cromioell to Speaker Lenthal, Oct. 14th, 1649. To use Mr. Picton’s own word, — has he any “ direct” evidence that women and children did not come in their way ? But why make such a wonder of the murder of the women of Wexford ? The wonder would be if they had not been so dealt with by men (!) who seemed to take delight in killing wmmen, — especially Irishwomen. When the Puritans won the battle of Naseby, amongst other atrocities related of them, it is recorded, ‘ ‘ that one hundred females, some of them ladies of distinguished rank, were put to the sword, under the pretence that they were Irish Catholics.” — See Clarendon ii., p. 655, or in some Editions, 659. — Rush worth, vi. 42. Clarendon, loc. cit. says, “ some were the wuves of officers of quality.” * Letter of F. Francis Stafford quoted by Most Rev. Dr. Moran in Historical Sketch, &c., given in full in Duffy’s Magazine, May, 1847. t This was carried on under Coote, whom Cromwell left governor of Wexford. % Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in Ireland, p. 82. Rushworth’s Hist. Call. IV., p. 455. § It is pleasant to be able to credit Castlehaven with this success, as with great opportunities he did more injury than service to the cause in which he was engaged. It must, however, be borne in mind that it was for his idol, Ormonde, this was done. 842 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH It was unfortunate for Ormonde that lie had scarcely an officer of distinguished ability to second him, whilst Cromwell had many. He sent Sir Lucas Taaffe, third son of Lord Taaffe, to command in Ross ; but, “ like sire like son,” he delivered up a well fortified town, fully garrisoned, without any real effort to hold it. Crom- well gave him pretty good terms, because he was glad to avoid fighting, having appeared beforeRoss with a much reduced and dis- contented army, already heartily tired of their winter campaign. Had Taaffe been equal to the occcasion, he could have held the place until relief would come ; or at least he could have secured better terms. Here is what Cromwell says on the subject : “ The governor desired commissioners might treat, and that in the meantime there might be a ceasing of acts of hostility on both sides. Which I refused; sending in word, that if he would march away with arms, bag and baggage, and give me hostages for performance, he should. Indeed he might have done it with- out my leave, by the advantage of the river. He insisted upon having the cannon with him ; which I would not yield unto, but required the leaving the artillery and ammunition ; which he was content to do, and marched away, leaving the great artillery and the ammunition in the stores to me.”* Cromwell on leaving Dublin for his southern campaign, made great proclamation of giving freedom to the people, and of not interfering with their consciences. To ordinary minds this latter promise would be taken to mean the free exercise of religion; but of the meaning attached to it by Cromwell, we have a strik- ing proof in his answer to Taaffe at New Ross. Taaffe asked liberty of conscience for such as would remain in the town after it was given up ; to which Cromwell replied : — “ As for that which you mention concerning liberty of conscience, I meddle not with any man’s conscience. But if by liberty of conscience, you mean a liberty to exercise the Mass, I judge it best to use plain dealing, and to let you know, where the Parliament of England have power, that will not be allowed of.”t So that Oliver made the vast concession of allowing people to think on religious matters as they pleased ; as if he could prevent them. Probably he would if he could. No wonder that one of his latest biographers is in ecstacies at his liberality. He says : — “Always let it be remembered that, boastful as this age is of its attain- ments in freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, even the * Letter to Lenthal, dated Hoss, 25th Oct., 1649. Carlyle, Vol. II., p. 77. Letter CXII. t Letter to Taaffe, 19th October, 1C49. Carlyle, Vol. II., p. 74. IN IKE LAND. 343 most prominent agitators for such, claims in our day, have from Oliver Cromwell much yet to learn.”* * * § Cromwell’s proceedings from his leaving New Ross until he appeared before Clonmel call for no very lengthened notice here. An alarming amount of sickness began to prevail in his army. It was a kind of dysentery arising, it was believed, from the com- bined influence of food and climate. He himself fell ill at New Ross, where he was obliged to remain for some time to recover and recruit.t His rapid and continuous successes had a great efiect on the southern garrisons. The soldiers who held them were Puritans at heart, and Inchiquin’s turning over to the King’s party wrought no change in their opinions — officers or soldiers. As long as he led them against his former enemies, the Irish Papists, they did not murmur, for they felt they were then at their work, although not under their proper leader. But the peace of ’48, by which the Catholics had obtained some privileges, aroused and intensified their old hatred of popery, and they eagerly awaited an opportunity to declare openly for the Parlia- ment.J Cromwell’s successes made it safe and opportune for them to do so. Inchiquin had the folly to think they were per- sonally devoted to himself as he had commanded them so long, and “possessed with this notion, he could never admit any of the Irish or other troops into his garrisons, which he had stipulated should be left entirely to his own disposal.’’^ So that his pet Puritans had a full opportunity of organising their revolt. Lest the principles of the Puritan soldiers who garrisoned the South should cool down or be forgotten, Cromwell took care to have spies and agents among them, a chief of whom was one Colonel Townshend, who had been cashiered by Inchiquin, because he had been a member of a conspiracy for seizing Youghal and even Inchiquin himself. The latter had merely escaped by getting tim ely notice of his danger from an officer who remained faithful to him, and who became acquainted with the plot by being solicited to join in it. Townshend thereupon retired to England, and was taken in hand by Cromwell, who shaped him into an accomplished instru- * Oliver Cromwell : his Life, Times, Battlefields, and Contemporaries. By Paxton Hood, London : 1882. Preface, p. ix. It throws some doubt on Mr. Paxton’s fitness for his task, that he did not know the year in which the Irish Rising took place, always making it 1640 instead of 1641. t The Puritans pretended to think the Catholic Doctors were likely to poi- son them. “ Our condition,” writes one, “for want of physicians is sad, being fain to trust our lives in the Popish doctors’ hands, when we fall sick, which is much, if not more than our adventures in the field.” — Letter of W". A., in Perfect Diurnal, January 8th, 1650. Quoted in “ Cromwell in Ireland,” p. 237. t See p. 337, note. § Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. II., p. 102. 844 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH ment for forwarding his design. After some time he returned to Ireland, denouncing the King’s murder in the most indignant language ; a crime so dreadful, he said, that it caused him to desert the party that was guilty of it, and return to imperil life and limb in the royal cause. The apparent honest earnestness with which he spoke imposed on Inchiquin, who restored him to his former command — the very thing he most desired, in order to be in a position to do Cromwell’s work. This he did so effec- tively, that the southern garrisons revolted from Inchiquin and declared for the Parliament. In the promotion of this defection an important part was also taken by Lord BroghilL* He had been sent on a secret mission to the King some time before Cromwell started on his Irish expedition. Cromwell having dis- covered this (as he discovered everything), secured an interview with him in London, proved to him that he knew all about his mission, and told him the best thing for him was to turn over to the Parliament. Broghill asked time to consider, but Oliver having caught his bird had no notion to let him fly away, and so told him plainly he must take his advice at once or go to prison. He saw he was caught, gave up his mission to the King, returned to Ireland in October, and applied himself most faithfully in promoting the interests of his new employer. Cromwell having recovered from his illness, left Boss on the 21st, and arrived before Waterford on the 24th of November. Waterford had many strong defences; and he, with an army sickly and much reduced in numbers, would prefer to win with silver bullets than hazard a siege or an assault. Ormonde was determined to strain every nerve to enable the city to offer a suc- cessful resistance ; but the state of affairs was very embarrassing to the besieged ; they believed there were two enemies at their gates — Cromwell and Ormonde. If they resisted Cromwell and failed, they must be prepared for the fate of Drogheda and Wex- ford ; if they admitted Ormonde, they believed he would hold the place, once relieved, whether they liked it or not ; and although not so bloodthirsty as Cromwell, they believed him to be quite as great an enemy to their religion, a fact proved by the whole course of his conduct towards the Catholics, and especially by his persecution of the Nuncio. t He despatched Castlehaven to their aid with one thousand men, but they refused him admission. * He was son of the fifth Earl of Cork, not third, as is sometimes stated, and brother of Robert Boyle the philosopher, who was the Earl’s seventh and youDgest son. Lodge’s Peerage, Vol. 1., pp. 166-7. t It will be remembered that it was in Waterford, “ a noble and Catholic citie,” the bishops and clergy assembled on the 6th of August, 1646, to examine the terms of the Peace of ’46. See Unkind Deserter ^ Vol. II., p. 44, Dub. ed. IN IKE LAND. 345 Later, he sent Lieut.-General Ferrall with 1,300, or according to some accounts, 1,500 men. This general, because he was the friend of the Nuncio and Owen E-oe’s most trusted officer, was received by them, and made military governor of the place. Cromwell, as soon as he had arrived, summoned the garrison to deliver up the city to him on quarter. “ Lieutenant-General Ferrall would give way to none to answer other than himself, whoe required the trumpeter to returne unto his master with this resulte, that he was Lieutenant-General Ferrall, governor of that place, at pre- sent having 2000 of his Ulster forces there, that as long as any of them did survive would not yield the towne ; with this intention the trumpeter turned taile ; Cromwell hereof certified, dislodginge, turned his aim elsewhere.”* Cromwell finding that he would have to encounter an accomplished soldier, brave as he was incorruptible, called a council of war, at which it was resolved to raise the siege and retire into winter quarters. He had lost over a thousand men by sickness during the short time he was before Waterford. Ormonde was at hand with a large force, and could have inflicted great — perhaps irreparable losses on Orom- welFs retiring army ; but in order to do so, he must pass through the city, a permission which the people peremptorily refused him. Thus a great opportunity to strike a blow for the royal cause was lost. But the Nemesis of Retribution pursued Ormonde through the whole of this campaign — retribution for his hatred and con- tempt of his Catholic fellow-countrymen, from whom he had sprung ; retribution for his insolent behaviour towards the Pope’s representative in Ireland, and for the persistent persecution with which he pursued him. The revolt of the Munster garrisons was a great godsend to Cromwell. It placed at his disposal good winter quarters for his army, and brought a great accession of strength to him. At Whitechurch, near Dungarvan, he was met by 2,500 men of those garrisons, who assured him that winter quarters would be gladly provided for him, in the towns where garrisons had lately declared for the Parliament. He himself fixed his headquarters in Youghal. On his march to this place from Waterford he took Britterstown, Kilmeaden, Curraghmore, Granno, D unhill and Dungarvan. He arrived before the last-named town on the 4th of December. It had previously submitted to Lord Broghill, but the people having repented of their submission, again shut their gates ; terrified at Cromwell’s approach, they surrendered at discrotion. An order was issued to put the inhabitants to the sword in punishment of their treachery ; but Cromwell, from some Aphor. Disc., Vol. II., p. 57. 346 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH cause or another, changed his mind, revoked the order, spared the lives of the people, and protected the town from plunder with the exception of the church and castle.* * * § Michael J ones, the Commandant of Dublin and hero of Rath- mines, died at Dungarvan. Cromwell writes of him to Lenthal : The noble Lieutenant-General (Jones) whose finger, to my knowledge, never ached in all these expeditions, fell sick, we doubt not, upon a cold taken upon our late wet march and ill accommodation. He went to Dungarvan, where, strugglingforsome four or five days with fever, he died ; having run his course with so much honor, courage, and fidelity, as his actions speak better than my pen. What England lost hereby, is above me to speak. I am sure I lost a noble friend and companion in labours.”"!* Yet in spite of^ this panegyric, it is certain that great enmity and distrust existed between Jones and Cromwell. A strict surveil- lance was maintained by him and Ireton over the movements of Jones, who shortly before hisdeath was engaged in devising projects to beat Cromwell out of Ireland.^ We are told also that one Mrs. Chaplin, daughter of the Minister of Dungarvan under the Crom- wellians, who lived in the house in which Jones died, often said it was confidently believed that Cromwell had found means to poison Jones.§ ^ Ormonde cast about for winter quarters with little success. He himself retired to Kilkenny, but Limerick and Waterford, the two most important places in the hands of the royalists, refused in the most decided manner to admit garrisons from him. Inchiquin went into Kilmallock, against the will of the inhabi- tants ; whilst Hugh O’Neill, with about 1,600 Ulstermen, was joyfully received in Clonmel and its neighbourhood. * A local tradition says, the lives and property of the people were saved by the following curious incident : As they were about to execute the merciless command, a woman named Nagle forced her way through the crowd with a flagon of beer in her hand, and drank to the General’s health, calling on him to pledge her in turn, Cromwell was so pleased with her courage and courtesy, that he accepted the pledge and permitted his soldiers to partake of the liquor, which they, thirsty and heated, found very refreshing, and which th servants of the woman abundantly supplied. The order was immediately revoked. Cromwell in Ireland, p. 235. Quoted from Hall’s Ireland, &c., Vol. I., p. 277. It was not Oliver’s custom to revoke his slaughtering orders for trifles; but he may have done it in this case, inasmuch as he must have been in high spirits, after the Munster garrisons having declared for him. t Letter to Lenthal from Cork, Dec. 19th, 1649. J Morrice’s Memoir of Lord Orrery, p. 16. § Smith’s History of Waterford, p. 65. See Cromwell in Ireland, p. 235, Ohs. Cromwell’s jealousy and fear of Jones would in a great measure account for his bringing him with him on his Munster campaign. He thus had him under his eye, and had deprived him of the power which possession of Dublin would certainly give him. IN IRELAND. 347 At the close of the year 1649, so disastrous to the royal cause, Ormonde applied to the King for permission to leave Ireland ; assuring his Majesty, however, that he would not retire from his post without his full approval. The King refused to accede to the request, unless under certain circumstances, which he stated in a letter to Ormonde, and of the existence of which, he, the king, must be made aware, before he would allow him to take his departure. Although Cromwell had just gone through a rough, trying campaign, he did not remain long inactive at Youghal ; but made visits to Cork, Kinsale, Bandon, Skibbereen and some other places which had fallen into his hands by the revolt of Inchi- quin’s Puritan soldiers. We have the following cotemporary account of the persecutions inflicted on the people of Cork, after the city had fallen into the hands of the Puritans : “ Their first edict was, that all the clergy should at once depart from the city; permitting, however, four parish priests to remain, lest the Catholic citizens, who were as yet too powerful, might be impelled to revolt.” — “jThe hatred of the heretics for our religion becoming greater and greater every day, an order was published prohibiting the citizens to carry swords, or to have in their houses any arms whatsoever. This being effected, another proclamation was issued by the President of the Council of War, commanding all Catholics either to abjure their religion or to immediately depart from the city. Should they consent to embrace the parliament- ary religion (parliamentariam religionem) they were permitted to remain and enjoy their goods and property. Should they, how- ever, pertinaciously adhere to 'popery, all, without exception, were to immediately depart from the city. Three cannon shots were to be fired as signals at stated intervals before nightfall, and any Catholic that should be found in the city after the third signal, was to be massacred without mercy. It was then that the constancy of the citizens in the faith was seen. There was not even one to be found in the whole city to accept the proffered imperious condition, or to seek to enjoy his property and goods with the detriment of his faith. Before the third signal all went forth from the city walls — the men and women, yea, even the children and the infirm ; and it was a sight truly worthy of heaven to see so many thousands thus abandoning their homes — so many venerable matrons, with their tender children, wandering through the fields, or overcome by fatigue, seated on the ground, in ditches, or on the highways ; so many aged men, some of whom had held high offices in the state, and were members of the nobility, with thei? wives and families, wandering to and fro, knowing not where to seek a place of refuge ; so many merchants .348 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH who, on that morning abounded in wealth, but now had not a house in which to rest their weary limbs, yet all with joy went forth to their destruction, abandoning their houses and goods, their revenues and property, and wealth, choosing rather to be afflicted with the people of God, on the mountain tops, and in the caverns, in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness, than to enjoy momentary pleasures, and temporal prosperity with sin.”* Cromwell took the field on the “nine and twentieth of January” (1650), as he tells us, to begin his Spring campaign. The army was in good health, and although not so numerous as when he landed in Ireland, was greatly augumented by the soldiers of the revolted garrisons. They had abundant supplies from England, and they were full of confidence from their recent series of victories. He turned his face towards Kilkenny ; took Fethard, Callan, Cahir, and many smaller places that fell in his way ; in short, he seemed to be making a triumphant progress, instead of carrying on a campaign. Ormonde had wintered in Kilkenny, which, however, he quitted when Cromwell’s approach made it insecure for him, and retired to Limerick, leaving Castle- haven in command. The Commissioners of Trust proceeded to Ennis. Colonel Hewson, whom Cromwell had left governor of Dublin when he went south, received orders to join him with as many troops as he could safely spare from Dublin and other gar- risons. He left Dublin on the 24th of February with 2,000 foot and 1,000 horse. He took the strong castle of Ballysonan, near Kilcullen, and some other places as he proceeded, and thus kept his communication with Dublin open. Meantime Castlehaven was ordered by Ormonde to take the field. Having done so, he stormed Athy with success, where a magazine and 700 prisoners fell into his hands. Cromwell having been joined at Gowran by Hewson, appeared before Kilkenny with a strong force ; but that did not prevent him from having recourse to his old “ silver bullet” practice ; so he bribed an officer of the garrison named Tickle, who undertook to give him information as to where the defences were weakest, and to open some of the gates to him when he came before the * Relatio rerum quarumdarum, &c. Anno 1650, Spic. Ossor., Vol. II., p. 52. Translated in Historical Sketch, &c., compiled by Most Rev. Dr. Morao, pp. 40-1. Duffy, Dublin. Obs.— Colonel Phaire (or Phayr), was governor of Cork at this time. Having been a leading man in the revolt of the garrison against Inchiquin, he was appointed by Cromwell to the post. It would ap- pear that the persecution above related was either suggested or approved of by Cromwell. Writing to Lenthal he says : — “ The Garland, one of your third-rate ships, coming happily into Waterford Bay, I ordered her, and a great prize lately taken in that bay, to transport Colonel Phayr to Cork. ..... Giving him such instructions as were proper for the promoting of your interests there'' Letter of 14th Nov., 1649. Aphor. Disc., Vol. III., p. 319. IN IRELAND. 349 city. Tickle’s treackery fared badly with him. Letters of his were intercepted, revealing the plot. He confessed the whole business, and so was hanged.* It was generally believed that Kilkenny could have held out much longer than it did, but Sir Walter Butler seeing the townspeople inclined, or rather resolved to come to terms with Cromwell, thought it better to make conditions before they did so, and before the besiegers became exasperated against the city. Kilkenny was surrendered on articles drawn up on the 27th of March, 1650. By the first of these the city and castle were delivered up to Cromwell, “ with all arms, ammunition, and provision of public stores therein.” The 2nd article was, “ That all the inhabitants of the said city of Kilkenny, and all others therein, shall be defended in their persons, goods, and estates, from the violence of the soldiery, and that such as shall desire to remove thence elsewhere, none excepted, shall have liberty so to do, with their goods, within three months after the date of these articles.” 3. The third article provided that the governors, officers, and soldiers, “ and all others who shall be so pleased,” shall march away, at or before nine o’clock to-morrow morning (the 28th) “ bag and baggage.” The soldiers were to march two miles from the city, with drums beating, colours flying, matches lighting, ammunition in pouches, and then and there deliver up their arms, &c., except one hundred stand, which they were allowed to retain to protect themselves from the Tories.”f “ Catholicity was flourishing in the city of Kilkenny, when the Puritan army, like a devastating torrent, overturning everything in its course, appeared before the walls. As soon as they got posses- sion of the city, they impiously prophaned the churches, overthrew the altars, destroyed the paintings and crosses, and showed their contempt for everthing sacred. The vestments, which had been for the most part concealed, were discovered and plundered by the soldiery. The books and paintings were cast into the streets. * The bribe which Tickle was to receive seems an exceptionally large one, namely £4,000, the governorship of Kilkenny, and a high command in Crom- well’s army. See Billings’ Vindicice Cathol., dec., pp. 226-7, and “Cromwell in Ireland,” p. 294. t The people called Tories robbed, but they must not be regarded as common robbers. In the beginning, they were the owners or descendants of the owners of Irish estates, who had been robbed themselves, in the various confiscations under Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I. They did not consider it a crime to make predatory raids on the new possessors of the lands, which they still looked upon as their own. They took shelter in the woods, had their leaders, and received recruits. The system became enlarged by degrees, and many who could not claim to be the descendants of former owners became Tories ; but the representative of some old proprietor was usually their Colonel or Captain. Those Tories were, in the eye of the law, outlaws and rebels, and a price was 850 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH and either burned or taken away as booty. Dr. Patrick Lynch of Galway writing on the 1st of May, 1650, to the Secretary of the Congregation of the Propaganda, says that a report had reached him of cruelties that had taken place in the city of Kilkenny, and of a number of priests, religious, nobles, and merchants who had been put to death there.”* A very beauti- ful stone structure built in the style of an obelisk stood in the High Street at this time. It was surmounted by a sculptured representation of the Crucifixion. Cromwell’s soldiers, after having got possession of the city, made a target of this sacred symbol, and did not cease firing at it until it was destroyed. We are told by two contemporary and independent authorities, that of seven soldiers who were most prominent in this unholy work, six died of some mysterious disease within the two following days.f Hr. Griffith Williams, Protestant bishop of Kilkenny, then in exile, thus laments the disasters that had befallen the Cathe- dral of St. Canice : “ The great and most famous and most beautiful Cathedral Church of St. Keney, they have utterly defaced and ruined. They have thrown down the great roof of it, taken away five great and goodly bells, broken down all the windows, and carried away every bit of glass, which, they say, was worth a very great deal ; and all the doors of it, that hogs might come and root, and the dogs gnaw the bones of the dead ; and they broke down a most exquisite marble font, wherein the Christians’ children were regenerated, all to pieces, and threw down many goodly marble monuments that were therein, and especially that stately and costly monument of the most honourable and noble family of the House of Ormonde, and divers others of most rare and excellent work, not much inferior, generally set on the heads of the leaders. It was a service very acceptable to the State, to shoot them down wherever met with. J. P. Prendergast thus writes of them : — “ These Tories or outlaws will be found to have had their origin in the extraordinary revolutions which landed property in Ireland underwent in Queen Elizabeth’s, James the First’s, Charles the First’s, Cromwell’s, and Charles the Second’s reigns — nothing in the History of Europe being similar to the Cromwellian Settlement except the conquests effected by the northern barbarians ; so that, had Augustin Thierry only known it, he need not have selected the Conquest of England by the Normans on the grounds of its being the latest of those conquests where men, deprived of all that makes life valuable, are seen resigning themselves to the sight of strangers sitting as masters at their own hearths, or frantic with despair, rushing to the forest to live there like wolves, in rapine, murder, and independence.”^ * Cromwell in Ireland, pp. 313-14, and authorities there quoted. t Ibid., p. 315. 1 The Tory War of Ulster. By John P. Prendergast, author of the “ Crom- wellian Settlement of Ireland,” part I., p. 6. IN IRELAND. 351 if I be not mistaken, to most of the best, excepting the Kings’, that are in St. Paul’s Church, or the Abbey of Westminster.”* “When Kilkenny was captured by the Puritans under Crom- well, in 1650, the Catholic priests were either hanged or driven into exile. The Archbishop of Dublin, in a letter to the Propaganda, dated June 6th, 1650, said, that Dr. Rothe in the beginning of March, when endeavouring to escape, was dragged from his carriage, stripped of his clothes, and then covered with an old cloak which was full of vermin, and cast into a filthy dungeon, where he died the next month. From a letter of the bishop of Clonfert, it would appear that the aged bishop, after being treated in so brutal a manner by his captors, was suffered to die in his own house.”t It was thus that Cromwell and his Puritans observed the 2nd article of the agreement by which Kilkenny was surrendered to him. Cromwell was such a power in himself, that he required but little aid from others during his “ root and branch” campaign in Ireland ; yet he had many efficient helpers. Broghill, Ireton and Ludlow were in no way inferior to him for zeal in exterminating the Irish, but although they hated those Irish and their religion just as much as he did, only one out of the three (his-son-in-law Ireton) had the least regard for him. Broghill was a trimmer, and had but lately deserted the Royal cause. Ludlow actually hated Cromwell, a fact which he does not attempt to conceal in his Memoirs ; he rather gives it prominence. Lord Broghill, in conjunction with Henry Cromwell, who had just landed at Youghal, defeated Inchiquin near Limerick, and was proceeding to join the main army before Clonmel, when he received secret intelligence from his brother that David, Lord Roche, was collecting forces for the relief of that town. Broghill at once rode off to Clonmel, whence he received reinforce- ments amounting to nearly two thousand men, horse and foot. With these he returned and uniting them with his own forces went in search of Roche. He found him at Macroom ; and being reinforced and unexpected he dealt him a crushing defeat, killing, it was said, about 700 of his men, and taking many prisoners. Among the latter were the Bishop of Ross, Boetius * Ibid., p. 317. The monument above referred to was that of Thomas Butler, surnamed the Black. He was tenth Earl of Ormonde, and died in 161^. Obs . — He was familiarly known as “Black Tom,” and was a great favourite with Queen Elizabeth, who sometimes playfully called him her “ black hus- band.” t Episcopal Succession. By W. Maziere Brady. Vol. I., p. 365. The cele- brated David Rothe was Bishop of Ossory from iffis till his death in 1650. 852 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Egan, and the High Sheriff of Kerry * Broghill ordered the High Sheriff to be shot, hut the bishop was spared with the object of utilizing his influence to induce the garrison of a neighbouring castle, Carrigadrohid, to give it up. Broghill ordered the bishop to be brought before the place, and “ offered him pardon if he would use his efforts to make the garrison surrender. When he was brought within hearing of those within, instead of urging them to yield, he exhorted them to maintain their post resolutely against the enemies of their religion and country. A true soldier could have honoured such heroism, even in an enemy. But not so Broghill ; by his order the brave bishop was abandoned to the fury of the soldiers. His arms were first severed from his body ; he was then dragged along the ground to a tree close by, and hanged from one of its branches with the reins of his own horse.”t The hardest piece of work which Cromwell had to face in Ire- land, was still before him — the siege of Clonmel. The town was important by population and position ; important too, on this occasion from another cause ; it was held by Hugh O’Neill, Owen Hoe’s nephew, at the head of 1200 or 1500 of his fearless and * De Burgo says the bishop was seized on the highway. “iw via puhlica a Turma Equitum hostilium comprehensusP Hib. Dominicana, p. 490. t Cromwell in Ireland, pp. 322-3, and authorities quoted. “The bishop,” says Taylor, “having pledged his word to return, went to the fort, and, as- sembling the soldiers, earnestly conjured them to be faithful to their King, their country, and their God ; -he then returned to Broghill, and was immediately hanged. This instance of pure fidelity and devoted heroism is described as the extreme of insolence and obstinacy, by those who could discover no merit in an Irishman and a Papist .” — Civil Wars, Vol. II., p. 39. “His enemies could discover nothing in this conduct but insolence and obstinacy, for he was a papist and a prelate.” — Leland’s Ireland, Vol. III., p. 363. The holy Bishop, Boetius Egan, was a native of Duhallow in the County of Cork. He was sent in early youth to Louvain to prosecute his studies, where he took the habit of the Franciscan Order. He had for cotemporaries there, Colgan, Fleming, and others, who afterwards became famous in the annals of Irish Literature. He had returned to Ireland before the Rising of 1641. He was Chaplain-General to the Irish Forces at Benburb. On the eve of this famous battle “the whole army confessed, and Owen O’Neill, with the other generals, piously partook of the Holy Sacrament ; the testimonials of their con- fession were given by the hands of O’Neill to one of the Generals of the Observantines deputed by the Nuncio to the spiritual care of the army, who, after a short exhortation, pronounced the Apostolic Benediction, and instantly calling on the name of his Holiness, they rushed to the conflict.” Father Egan is here called an Observantine, because he belonged to the Franciscans of the Strict Observance. On the 11th of August, 1646, the Nuncio recommended Father Egan to Rome for the See of Ross, for which he received the papal brief “ in or before April, 1648.” He was consecrated by the Nuncio himself. Fran- ciscan Monasteries, p. 237. By Rev. C. P. Meehan, M.R.I.A. Cromwell in Ireland, by Rev. D. Murphy, S.J., p. 323. The Embassy in Ireland, p. 173. Brady’s Episcopal Succession, Vol. IL, p. 112, &c. IN IRELAND. 353 devoted Ulstermen. The inhabitants were thoroughly loyal to their King, their religion and country. Unlike the bloodthirsty enemy who was at their gates, they acted with praiseworthy liberality to those who differed from them in religion, giving all the Protestants who did not wish to join them, a safe conduct to retire from the town ; and it is a remarkable fact that the Com- missioners who afterwards inquired into the Irish massacres found that there had been no murder committed in the vicinity of Clonmel. Cromwell appeared before the place on the 27th of April, 1650 ; hut about a month before he had sent some regi- ments to block the approaches. The garrison was resolute, and O’Neill and the Mayor solemnly bound themselves to defend the place to the last ; so that, although Cromwell offered fair terms if the garrison would surrender, O’Neill’s reply was a decided refusal. Thus things at once came to the arbitrament of the sword. As soon as Cromwell's cannon were got into position, he opened fire on the defences. The besieged replied by many well planned sallies indicting severe losses on the besiegers, ‘‘ who,” says the Aphorismical Author, “ some days lost 200, other days 300, other 400, and other 500 men.” This seems an exaggeration, but anyhow, Cromwell’s losses were so great that he would have gladly retired from the place, if he could have done so without inj uring his reputation. But feeling that he could not, he had recourse to his usual weapon — bribery. He, by those secret practices of which he was so great a master, discovered a fit instrument for his purpose ; this was Major Fennell, who was commander of the horse under O’Neill. He was the nephew of that Dr. Fennell who was physician to the Ormonde family, and whom Ormonde managed to have placed on the Supreme Council of the Confederation, to act as his spy and tool. Captain Fennell, now in high command, seems to have been a traitor all through ; and having, no doubt, imbibed the principles of his uncle the doctor, and of his master, Ormonde, he behaved like one who thought that every reverse suffered by the Catholic army was a clear gain to the Marquis. Captain Fennell had been at the battle of Portlester serving under Castlehaven, and there, with a strong force at his command, he remained suspiciously inactive, whilst some of O’Neill’s kinsmen were cut to pieces before his face. He surrendered Cappoquin,a strong place, without striking a blow. He abandoned the pass at Killaloe, and thus allowed Ireton to cross the Shannon, and invest Limerick at the Clare side ; and during the siege of that city he conspired with some other o£B.cers, seized one of the gates, and threatened to admit the enemy, unless the garrison capitulated. He should S54 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH have been executed long before for bis persistent treachery, but it remained for the enemy, whom that treachery had so much served, to give him his due. Ireton hanged him after taking Limerick. “ Tempted by an offer of £500 and of full pardon for the crime of taking up arms against the Parliament, Fennell pro- mised to open one of the gates on the north side of the town the next night, at 12 o’clock, and to allow five hundred of the besieging force to enter by it. A party of Ulstermen were on guard there. These he drew off, and in their place he put some men of his own regiment, as he knew they would not offer such a stubborn resistance as the brave men of the north. It so happened that, on the same night, Hugh O’Neill went to visit the posts and see with his own eyes how they were kept. He was told that Fennell was more busy than usual. When he reached the gate he found it guarded by Fennell’s men only, though he had given the strictest orders shortly before, that two-thirds at least of the number of those who watched the gates should be Ulstermen. Suspecting that treachery was at work, he called for the officer in command, and having questioned him and found his answers unsatisfactory, he had him taken into custody. Fennell could not conceal his guilt ; he promised to reveal the conspiracy in all its details, on condition that he should receive full pardon of his crime. As soon as O’Neill was made aware of the plot, he secured the various posts by means of strong reinforcements. In addition to the ordinary guard he placed a body of five hundred men at the gate by which the enemy would be admitted. All this was done so noiselessly that no suspicion was excited of the discovery just made. Advising with the rest what was best to do in that extremity, they resolved to open the gate, according to the former covenant. The enemy was watching his opportunity, and observing the signal, marched towards the gate ; five hundred did enter, the rest, nolens volens, were kept out ; all that entered were put to the sword.”* Cromwell, provoked and disappointed by his ill success at Clonmel, sent the most pressing orders to Lord Broghill to hasten to his aid. That active commander was fortunate enough to be free to join Cromwell, for the message reached him after he had defeated Lord Hoche. With his usual rapidity he marched to Clonmel. His arrival put new courage into the * Aphor. Discovery, Vol. II., p. 78. Cromwell in Ireland, p. 330. “This treachery was now grown universal, arising sometimes from the fears of the inhabitants, and sometimes from the corruption, avarice or cowardice of the g arrisons of the towns ; and was the cause of the loss of Kilmallock, and the astle of Catherlogh, and of almost all the strong places in Leinster and Munster that were taken this year.” Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. II., p. 114. IN IRELAND. 355 hearts of the downcast besiegers, who began to carry on their work with renewed vigour. A breach having been made, the storm commenced, but the storming party seem to have been in complete ignorance of the preparations O’l^eill had made to receive them. O’Neill, says a cotemporary author, “did set all men and maids to work, townsmen and soldiers (only those on duty attending the breach and the walls) to draw dunghills, mortar, stones, and timber, and make a long lane a man s height and about eighty yards length, on both sides up from the breach, with a footbank at the foot of it ;* and he caused to be placed engines on both sides of the lane, and two guns at the end of it invisible, opposite to the breach, and so ordered all things against a storm.” He entrusted the defence of this to a body of volunteers, armed with swords, scythes, and pikes. In the adjoining houses he placed a picked body of musketeers, and ordered them to keep up a steady fire on all approaching the breach. The storm began about eight o’clock in the morning. “The Puritans advanced to the assault, singing one of their scripture hymns. They entered without any opposition, and but few were to be seen in the town, till they so entered that the lane was crammed full with horsemen, armed, with helmets, backs, breasts, swords, musquetoons, and pistols, on which those in front seeing themselves in a pound, and could not make their way further, cried out, ‘ Halt !’ ‘ Halt !’ On which those entering behind at the breach, thought by those words that all * The Author of the Aphor. Disc. [Vol. If., p. 78], says O’Neill caused a counter-scarp to be made with a huge ditche right opposite to the breach.” No doubt, he did. Otherwise there would have been no “pound.” Had he not done so, the very pressure of the numbers in the lane would have enabled, or rather compelled the besiegers in front to force their way into the town. Thus then the pound was formed : — two walls about eighty yards long were built from the breach towards the town ; betw'’een them was a lane passage, at least as wide as the breach ; at the town end of this lane was constructed the counter- scarp, with the great ditch in front of it, and the footbank behind it, where the escarp usually is, but the footbank suited O’Neill’s strategy better, for on it, he planted the two guns, masked of course, which raked that lane with such a murderous fire. When the right moment came O’Neill’s “resolute party” flew to the breach and flung back the besiegers, allowing no more to enter. The Pound was complete : two walls with a lane between them ; the breach blocked by O’Neill’s men ; the counter-scarp and great ditch at the opposite end. And, says the author, the “besiegers advancinge forwarde unawares (both opposition and assault beinge so furious and hot) not obsearvinge either ditche or counter-scarp, fell head longe unto the said ditche from whence was noe redemption or possibility of recoverie, but there were massacred and butcherd. Their seconds and comrades seeinge what hapned, retired, neither the threats of the Generali, nor the bloudie sworde of inferiour officers was sufficient enough to keepe them from turning tayle to the assaulte, and turned to the camp, leaving Major-General O’Neylle in the possession of a bloudie wall.”— VIL, p. 78. 856 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH those of the garrison were running away, and cried out, Advance !’ ‘ Advance !’ as fast as those before cried ‘ Halt T ‘Halt!’ and so advanced till they thrust forward those before them, till that pound or lane was full and could hold no more. Then suddenly rushes a resolute party of pikes and musqueteers to the breach, and scoured off, and knocked back those entering. At which instance Hugh Duff’s men within fell on those in the pound with shots, pikes, sc}^thes, stones and casting of great long pieces of timber with the engines amongst them; and then two guns firing at them from the end of the pound, slaughtering them by the middle or knees with chained bullets, that in less than an hour’s time a thousand men were killed in that pound, being a top one another. About this time Cromwell was on horseback at the gates with his guard, expecting the gates to be opened by those entered, until he saw those in the breach beaten back and heard the cannons going off within. Then he fell off, as much vexed as ever he was since he first put on a helmet against the King, for such a repulse he did not usually meet with.”* “ So great was the slaughter that the infantry refused to advance the second time. Cromwell appealed to the cavalry. Amongst the first who responded to his call was Lieutenant Charles Langley. He was followed by Colonel Sankey, and one of the sons of John Cooke, whose services in pleading against Charles I. had been rewarded with the Chief- Justiceship of Munster. The troopers imitated the conduct of their officers, and in this way a second storming party was formed, under the command of Colonel Gulin. Langley put himself at the head of the dismounted cavalry. Sankey seems to have directed the assault. Cromwell’s soldiers displayed an energy and bravery worthy of their former fame. Their onset was so fierce that the Irish were driven from the breach, [which, as stated above, they had seized to prevent the besiegers from continuing to enter]. The assailants made their way to the eastern breastwork [counter scarp], opposite the breach ; but they were exposed to the galling cross fire from the neighbouring houses. Colonel Culin and several of his officers fell. Langley strove to mount the wall. His left hand was cut off by a blow of a scythe.f Determined at all hazards to gain the place, Cromwell continued to pour masses of troops into the breach, the hinder ranks pushing on those before them. For four hours the slaughter continued. By that time the greater part of the assailants were *The War of Ireland. By a British ofiBcer of Sir John Clottworthy’s Regi- ment, p. 107. t Hall’s Ireland, Vol. II., p. 90. Taylor’s Civil Wars, Vol. II., p. 38. IN IRELAND. 357 killed or wounded.”* A retreat was sounded, and the remnant of the besiegers that had survived retired to their camp, leaving O’l^eill in full possession of the breach.f But O’Neill could resist no longer. His provision and ammunition were exhausted. He held a council of his officers, and the decision come to was, that they should retire from the town, but to do so with safety and success presented no ordinary difficulties. O’Neill was equal to the emergency. He resolved to draw off his forces with all secrecy under cover of the night, and leave the mayor to make the best terms he could with Cromwell. He acquainted the mayor with this resolve, and it was agreed between them that when the mayor judged O’Neill to be six or seven miles away from the town, that he should send privately to Cromwell for leave to speak to him about conditions of surrender, but to make no mention of O’Neill, until the con- ditions were arranged and ratified. Having settled matters thus with the mayor, O’Neill managed to cross the river undis- covered by the guard of horse that lay at the other side of the bridge, and marched almost continuously until he reached a town called Ballnasack, twelve miles from Clonmel, where he refreshed bis men. He then proceeded to Waterford, but was not allowed to enter the city, as we learn from the author of the Aphorisinical Dis- covery. “ Major General Neylle,” he writes, “ arrivinge into Waterford, was not permitted to enter the city for severall motives : the one, that Preston was not so kind or loyall-hearted that he would willingly entertain the warrior, the other, that the cittie was thought too narrow for both parties, and allsoe that the plague was within the towne. By these and such other sur- mises the major and his party was kept out, and must continue as centinnells or safeguard between the enemy and cittie, neither town nor Governor Thomas Preston allowinge them any means or provision, other than what they could have from the countrie, having such a stronge enemy at their nose, until Diego Preston, condoling their case, did share with them one moytie of the garrison soldiers’ meanes and provision, 18 d. price, and some ammunition breade, per week ; whereby mighty relieved, sure the enemie would choose any other to be his neighbour rather than Hugh Oneylle, as havinge by woful experience a sadd trial of his courage and deportment everie day with some bickeringe.” The plague was thinning O’Neill’s ranks, and the enemy was creeping in upon him ; so he dismissed his foot, telling them to * Cromwell in Ireland, pp. 335-6. t See Appendix A., for the Story of the Silver Bctllet. 858 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH ** betake themselves by the shortest cutt to Limerick.” He and Major Fennell with the few horse he had, rode in the same direction during the night. The enemy having notice of O’HeiU’s flight pursued him about 30 miles towards Kilmallock, but he reached Limerick in safety.* “ The mayor, according as he was advised, about twelve o’clock at night, sent out to Cromwell very privately for a conduct to wait upon his Excellency ; which forthwith was sent to him, and an officer to conduct him from the wall to Cromwell’s tent, who, after some course of compliments, was not long capitulating, when he got good conditions for the town, such in a manner as they desired. After which Cromwell asked him if Hugh O’Neill knew of his coming out, to which he answered he did not, for that he was gone two hours after night fell with all his men, at which Cromwell stared and frowned at him, and said, ^ You knave, have you served me so, and did not tell me so before V To which the mayor replied, if his Excellency had demanded the question, he would tell him. Then he asked him what that Dnff O’Neill was, to which the Mayor answered, that he was an over sea soldier, born in Spain ; on which Cromwell said, ‘ G d n you and your over sea !’ and desired the mayor to give the paper again. To which the other answered, that he hoped his Excellency would not break his conditions or take them from him, which was not the repute his Excellency had, but to perform whatsoever he had promised. On which Cromw’ell was somewhat calm, but said in a fury, ‘ By G above he would follow that Hugh Duff O’Neill wheresoever he went.’”*!* “ Then the mayor delivered the keys of the gates to Cromwell, who immediately commanded guards on them, and next morning himself entered, wffiere he saw his men killed in the pound, notwithstanding which, and his fury that Hugh Duff went off as he did, he kept his conditions with the town.” “ This relation I had not only from some officers and soldiers of the besiegers, but also from the besieged, and that certainly Cromwell lost at the siege and storm about fifteen hundred men, being more than he lost by all the towns he stormed. Cromwell has got a good deal of credit for keeping his con- ditions with the Mayor of Clonmel, as he had made them in * Aphor. Discovery, Vol. II,, pp. 79-80. Waterford was surrendered to the parliament forces on the 6th of August [1650]. Diary of a Parliamentary Officer in Aphor. Disc., Vol. III., p. 219. t The War of Ireland, «S;c., p. 107, et seq. % The War of Ireland. By a British officer, &c., p. 107, et seq. Carte gives Cromwell’s loss before Clonmel at 2,000. The Relation, &c., says more than 2,000 ; McGeoghegan and Borlase, 2, COO. IN IRELAND. 359 ignorance of O’Neill’s flight. This he did despite some of his officers, who maintained that the secret retirement of O’Neill was a breach of the articles, and that he was not bound by them. Cromwell refused to listen to these suggestions ; there were other important considerations influencing his mind at the moment. The summons he had received to return to England was for sometime in his hands, and was of the most urgent kind : the interests of the Commonwealth required his im- mediate presence there, and, what he doubtless thought quite as important, his own interests required it ; for if the command he was called back to assume, had to be conferred on another, his whole plans for the future would be put out of joint — perhaps irretrievably marred. Besides O’Neill’s retirement from the town might be a piece of strategy which Oliver could not im- mediately fathom. That general had beaten him at strategy from the beginning, and if he overreached him by this last move, he would be a ruined man. His forces were greatly weakened and dispirited. His adhesion to his terms with the Mayor was a safe and defensible course, which would enable him to appear in England as the hero of a brilliant campaign, closing with the surrender of the important town of Clonmel. Oliver was too shrewd not to see that further effort on his part would be full of peril, even if such effort could be made ; for “ he doubted of getting on the soldiers next day to a fresh assault, and it was with much entreaty he persuaded them to lodge that night under the walls, that their siege might be believed not abso- lutely to be quitted.”"*^ Cromwell, in short, was but too glad of any fair excuse for quitting a place which, as he said, had well nigh “ brought his nobles to nine pence.”f * Cary’s Memorials, quoted in Cromwell in Ireland, p. 340. t The correct form of the above pithy and favourite saying gives “noble” in the singular : — e. g. Had well nigh ‘ ‘ brought his noble to nine pence.” The say- ing arose from the name of a gold piece first struck in the reign of Edward III., of the value of 6s. 8d. It was called a ‘'noble” either on account of its value, its beauty, or purity, or on account of all three. It was the largest and finest coin then known. It was struck to take the place of gold florins, which, through avarice, were too much alloyed by Edward, and had to be withdrawn^from cir- culation. Some, with less probability, say it was called a “ noble” in honour of a great naval victory gained over the French, at which Edward commanded in person. The noble continued to be a principal coin of the realm long after Edward’s time ; for we find it current during the reigns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth. The coinage in the reign of the former monarch became so depreci- ated, that his successors were compelled to reduce his shilling, first, to ninepence, then, to sixpence, and finally to withdraw it altogether from circulation. It is more than probable that during this period of alarming depreciation people began to say, “the noble itself [their best coin], would be brought to nine - pence at last.” The double entendre— nohXe, a coin, and noble, belonging to the nobility — together with the alliteration, was attractive. And thus, we may SGO THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Cromwell’s articles with the Mayor of Clonmel are dated May 18th, 1650,* * * * § and he sailed from Youghal for England on the 29th of the same month ; not, however, before he tried a flying shot at Waterford, in the hope, according to the Aphorismical Author, “ to recover there what by Hugh O’Neill, he had lost at Clonmel but he had scarcely come before the town when he received commands from England to appear there at sight.f Oliver, doubtless, would wish to recover what he lost before Clonmel. But he had, in all likelihood, two other motives for trying a dash at Waterford : — (1), a hope of retrieving his previous want of success there, and (2) an anxious desire to get hold of O’Neill, who had retired to that city from Clonmel. Did he not swear roundly to the Mayor of Clonmel, that he would follow that Hugh DufiP O’Neill wheresoever he went?” But there was no time either to take Waterford or catch O’Neill. He placed Ireton in command, who was already president of Munster, and hastened to Youghal. By the terms of Surrender the inhabitants of Clonmel were to be protected “ in their lives and estates from all plunder and violence of the soldiery, and to have the same right, liberty, and protection as other subjects.” There is no certain evidence that those terms were substantially violated, but the soldiers becom- ing indignant on finding that O’Neill had escaped, followed his line of march, and cut off all stragglers they overtook, amongst whom were two hundred women and children.;]: De Burgo records the martyrdom of priests after the taking of Clonmel and during the siege. Father James O’Reilly, a learned theologian and eloquent preacher, who taught polite literature and the Christian doctrine in that town, endeavoured to escape after O’Neill had retired, but fell into the hands of some Cromwellian soldiers. He at once proclaimed his quality and made profession of his faith before them.§ Instead of killing him at once, they covered his whole body with wounds. He lived about an hour, continuing to the last to invoke the Sacred Name, and to im- suppose, sprang; into existence a saying which, although very old, is by no means obsolete to-day. See Wade’s British History, Chronologically Arranged ; Reigns of Edward III. and Henry VIII. The long connection of the “noble” with legal business appears from the following passage: — “Upon every writ procured for debt or damage, amounting to forty pounds or more, a noble, that is six shillings and eightpence, is, and usually hath been paid to fine.” — Bacon. * Carte’s Ormonde, Vol II., p. 115. t Yol. IL, p. 79. X Letter in “ Cromwell in Ireland,^’’ p. 340. § “ Sacerdos sum,” said the brave Dominican, “ et religiosus, licit indignus.” Hib. Dominicana, p. 566. IN IKELAND. 361 plore the intercession of the Holy Mother of God and his patron saints. Father Myler Magrath, who went to Clonmel to afford the consolations of religion to the wounded and dying, was seized in the very act of exercising his ministry, and immediately hanged.* During the siege, F. Nicholas Mulcahy, Parish Priest of Ardfinnan, in the Co. Tipperary, was taken by a reconnoiter- ing party of Cromwell’s troopers. They offered him his life if he would advise the besieged to surrender, but this he firmly refused to do; he was led out in view of the town, and there beheaded as he knelt praying for his faithful people and the forgiveness of his enemies.f On his arrival in England Cromwell received a great ovation. He was met at Hounslow Heath by Fairfax and the ofiicers of the army. Many members of Parliament also went to greet him. He was, with “great ceremonies and appearances of joy,” con- ducted to Whitehall, where a dignified residence called the Cockpit had been allotted to him jby Parliament. Cromwell’s presence in England was made necessary by the menacing atti- tude of Scotland towards the Commonwealth. The young “ King of Scots,” as the English called Charles the II., had made terms with his people, and was daily expected to land in Scotland. Commissioners had been sent to him at Bredain, in March, 1650, He yielded to all their demands, and promised to take the Covenant on his arrival in Scotland, and to uphold it. The Scotch army moved southwards, but did not cross the Border. The Commonwealth bestirred itself and made preparations to meet the Scotch. Fairfax was commander-in-chief of the army of the Commonwealth, and Cromwell was to be made second in command under him in the coming campaign. Fairfax, however, declined to be the commander of an army, whose declared object was the invasion of Scotland, as he held that there was no justification for such a step, since the Scots had not invaded England. Had they done so, he would, he said, be quite ready, to lead an army against them, but as they had not, his con- science told him he should not invade their country. Fairfax was a chivalrous, high-minded man, and had, besides, tendencies towards Presbyterianism ; his wife was a strict Presbyterian, and counselled him to retire into private life rather than invade Scotland wdthout just cause. Moreover, he was not such a * Post expletum Missse Sacrificium, et administrandum moribundo homini Sacrosanctum Eucliaristise Sacramentum, Fixide Sacra in manibus reperta captus, &c. Ibid., p. 56. t Moran, from Bruodin. See O’Reilly’s Sufferers for the Fadh in Ireland, 862 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH fanatical enemy of monarchy as many others of his time. And finally Cromwell was a most inconvenient man to act with ; for whilst professing the greatest submission to those above him, he was continually intriguing against them, in order to discredit them, set them aside, and clear his own path upwards. Of this Fairfax had experience enough, and he did not care to be subject to his second in command. Oliver, who always became personally inspired, when it served his purpose, had no scruples about invading Scotland. In this as in many other cases he could draw abundant justification from the 110th psalm, and could put to silence all objectors by his ever ready and infallible defence — “ God would have it so which being interpreted, meant that, “ he, Oliver, would have it so.” Fairfax retired into private life on a pension of £5,000 a year. Cromwell led the English army into Scotland, won the great battle of Dunbar against superior numbers, and the disadvantage of ground, and by the crowning victory of Worcester sent the young King on those wonderful adventures of his, which, as related by Clarendon, surpass the most highly wrought romances.* It may be convenient here to say a few words about the movements of the Ulster army after Owen Roe’s death. That General arranged, during his last illness, that in case he did not recover, his successor in the command should be chosen by the nobility and gentry of the province. The choice was to be ratified by the Marquis of Ormonde, with whom he had come to terms during his illness. Those who had authority to vote for the future general met in Belturbet for that purpose on the 18th of March, 1650. Many candidates presented themselves, and there was much dissension among the electors. The O’Neill party thought the General of the Ulster army should be an O’Neill, whilst they differed as to what particular O’Neill should be chosen. Ormonde, who was greatly interested in the appoint- ment, put forward Daniel O’Neill, a nephew of Owen’s, who always acted with Ormonde, was frequently the medium of in- tercourse between himself and Owen Roe, and was, moreover, a Protestant; but Daniel O’Neill felt that the Catholic army, as * Lady Fairfax. — On the first day of Charles the First’s trial, when the name of Fairfax was called, as one of the commissioners, a female voice cried from the gallery, “ He has more wit than to be here.” On another occasion, when Bradshaw attributed the charge against the King to the consentient voice of the people of England, the same female voice exclaimed, “No, not one-tenth of the people.” A faint murmur of approbation followed, but was instantly suppressed by the military. The speaker was recognised to be Lady Fairfax, wife of the commander-in-chief ; and these affronts, probably on that account, were suffered to pass unnoticed. Nation’s Trial. — Clarendon, iii., p. 254. Lingard, viii., p. 115. IN IRELAND. 36S the Ulster army was called, would not accept a Protestant general, so he declined to offer himself for the post and with a correct and apparently unbiased judgment, recommended Hugh Duff O’Neill, another nephew, then actively engaged in his famous defence of Clonmel, “ as being a man who knew the ways Owen Koe O’Neill took to manage the people, and one not unacceptable to the Scots, and who would do nothing contrary to Ormonde’s command.”* Unfortunately, private interests ap- peared to influence both candidates and electors more than the good of their country. A man who had no private ends to serve would have had no difficulty in fixing on Lieutenant-General O’F errall, Owen Roe’s most trusted officer, or on Hugh Duff O’Neill, his major-general and nephew, named above ; but because the latter did not appear at Belturbet (which they knew was out of his power to do), he was passed over, as if he could not be elected in his absence ! Heber M‘Mahon, Bishop of Clogher, was one of the candi- dates; to secure something like unanimity he was chosen General-in-chief of Ulster. It is said by his cotemporaries that he was a man of much good sense and political sagacity, but of course he was not in any sense a soldier, except that he was by no means wanting in courage. It was an unnatural combination, that of mitre and crozier with sword and helmet, but it had to be accepted as the best arrangement under the circumstances. Recruits flocked to the bishop’s standard, and he soon found him- self at the head of about 6,000 men, horse and foot. He gained some trifling successes at first, but by an ill-considered movement he allowed Coote and Venables to unite their forces, and thus become too strong for him. Yet against the advice of his officers he gave them battle on ground where his forces were most unfavourably placed, especially the horse, who could not move with any freedom, the place was so rugged and uneven. He had not even his full number of men, for a large party had been sent to seize Castledoe. With unaccountable fatuity he persisted in giving the enemy battle. The two armies met at a place called Scariff Hollis, near Letterkenny, on the 21st of June, 1650, where the Ulster forces were utterly routed, this being the first time Owen Roe’s brave Northerns had tasted defeat. O’Ferrall did everything in his power to discipline the troops before- hand. He led the infantry in the battle with his usual skill and bravery. Henry O’Neill, Owen Roe’s son, performed prodigies of valour, but bravery is woeful waste of bone and sinew where suc- cess is impossible. The bishop escaped from the field, and accom- Aphor. Disc. Daniel O’Neill’s letter to Ormonde, Vol. 11., p. 346. 364 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH panied by a small party travelled day and night for twenty-four hours ; but unfortunately, Major King, Governor of Enniskillen, having got information of his movements, sent a party after him sufficiently numerous to capture him. He fought bravely and received many wounds, but at length yielded upon promise that he should receive fair quarter, contrary to which, Sir Charles Coote, as soon as he knew he was a prisoner, caused him to be hanged with all the circumstances of contumely, reproach and cruelty he could desire.”* His head was placed upon the walls of Derry. O’Ferrall and a few others escaped by flying to the mountains. 3,000 are said to have fallen on the field. Coote promised life and liberty to Colonel Phelim O’Neill (not Sir Phelim), on promise that he would procure for the said Coote one hundred beeves. Whilst the articles between them were being drawn up in Coote^s tent a sergeant rushed in and announced that he had brought in as a prisoner Henry Koe O’Neill, the son of Owen Koe. Coote reprimanded him for not bringing his head. Colonel Phelim began to plead for his relative, saying he was a Spaniard born, and that he came to Ireland a soldier of fortune ; but his head was immediately cut off, and Coote told Colonel Phelim that if “ he began to prate he would be served the same way.” O’Neilfls blood was stirred, and he made answer, That he would rather be served so, than to owe his life to such a monstrous villain as he was ; whereupon he ordered him forth- with to be carried out, and knocked on the head with tent-poles by Sir Charles’s men.” This was a slow torturing death, meant, doubtless, by Coote to be so, but one of his officers “ in com- passion to him and to put him out of pain, drew his sword and ran him through the heart.” His head, together with Henry Hoe’s, was also set up in Derry.*|* Such were the Cootes, father and son; and no doubt the reader has before now arrived at the conclusion that to compare them to Bengal tigers or hyenas mad with hunger would be a gross libel upon the wild beasts. The great army of the great Owen Roe ended its career amid sorrow and defeat at Scariff Hollis.t Whilst Cromwell was pursuing his victorious career in Ireland, * Clarendon’s Historical Review of the Affairs of Ireland, p. 134. t Desiderata Hib. Curiosa, Yol. II., p. 526. X Written by the Four Masters, Scairbh-sholais. It is a ford on the river Swilly two miles west of Letterkenny. It is rendered into English Shallow ford of the light.^^ In former times it seems to have been a principal passage across the river, and lights were placed at it, to direct travellers to it at night and guide them to cross in safety. See Joyce’s Irish Names, Yol. I., p. 219. IN IRELAND. 365 Charles the 11. was an exile, and seems not to have been a welcome guest anywhere. He was at the Hague, having some claim to Dutch hospitality, but he would have been requested to withdraw from that place, had he not done so of his own accord. He had, it would seem, determined to come to Ireland, but the rapid change of circumstances here, or Ormonde’s secret dislike to his coming, or both combined, caused that idea to be given up.* He was some time at St. Germain’s, where the queen his mother resided, but he found his position very unpleasant there, on account of the coldness of the French Court towards him ; so, after some dallying and delay, he withdrew to the Island of Jersey, where the governor, Sir George Cathcart, had remained thoroughly faithful to the royal cause. In Jersey he was visited by George Windham, or Wynram, on the part of the Scotch parliament, who invited him to settle in Scotland. It is said that Charles did not like the Covenant, which is likely enough, as it was much too strict and gloomy for his free and easy mode of life, but he was surrounded at Breda and elsewhere by men, who had instilled into him principles which he seems afterwards to have cherished through life, namely — “that honour and conscience were bugbears, and that the King ought to govern himself rather by the rules of prudence and necessity.”f He received the proposal of the Scots very favourably, as Ormonde’s defeat at Rathmines and Cromwell’s sack of Drogheda had, for the time being, ruined his prospects in Ireland. He informed Windham that he would meet the Commissioners from the Parliament of Scotland at Breda in the ensuing March [1650] ; but this arrangement did not prevent him from corresponding with Montrose, who had undertaken to raise Scotland in his favour. Montrose made his attempt and was defeated, taken prisoner, and hanged on a gibbet thirty feet high. Between his arrest and execution he was treated with every indignity which the barbarous ingenuity of his enemies could invent. But he bore him- self like a nobleman, in the highest sense of that word. He was quartered after his death, and his limbs distributed to various towns of Scotland. All this was suffered for the King. Mont- rose’s attempt having had his full [if secret] approbation ; but when he was hanged, drawn and quartered, the wretched * Charles I. also wished to throw himself on the loyalty of the Irish. But the vast majority of the supporters of royalty here were Homan Catholics, and Ormonde, who hated the religion he had deserted, feared that if either Monarch came amongst us, moved by the enthusiasm his presence would be sure to evoke, he would be induced to make concessions, to which Ormonde could never assent. t Carte’s Letters, Vol. I., 391. Lingard, Vol. VIII., p. 168, 366 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Charles wrote to the Scotch Parliament ** protesting that the invasion made by Montrose had been expressly forbidden by him, and begging that they ‘ would do him the justice to believe that he had not been accessory to it in the least degree.’ His Secretary, at the same time, assured Argyle that the King felt no regret for the defeat of a man who had presumed to draw the sword without, and contrary to, the royal command.”* Thus, by meanest falsehood, did this miserable prince, to screen him- self from blame, caluminate a man who had risked all and lost all — even life itself — in his cause. Charles did not actually take the Covenant at Breda, but he signed a treaty binding himself to take both Covenants, namely, the Scottish Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant ; and to disavow and declare null the peace with the Irish ; never to permit the free exercise of the Catholic religion in Ireland, or any other part of his dominions ; to acknowledge the authority of all parliaments held from the commencement of the then late war ; and to govern in civil matters by advice of the parlia- ment, — in religions by that of the Kirk.f Matters having been so far arranged, Charles embarked on board a small squadron furnished by the Prince of Orange, and after a perilous navi- gation of three weeks, during which he had to contend with the stormy weather, and to elude the pursuit of the parliamentary cruisers, he arrived safely in the Frith of Cromarty on the 23rd of June ; but was compelled to take the Covenant before per- mitted to land.”J Ormonde was kept informed of the King’s movements either by himself or those about him, as also of his negociations with the Scots; so that he was acting at home with an amount of information which neither the Prelates nor the Commissioners of Trust possessed. There seems to be no doubt that he approved of the King’s arrangement with the Scots about going to Scot- land and taking the Covenant; yet with that double dealing by which he, in every eventuality, provided a defence or excuse for himself, he thus writes to Secretary Nicholas who, he knew, was adverse to the King’s agreement with the Scots : — “ I do not well remember what it was I writ to you from Youghal, touch- ing the King’s going into Scotland, nor have you sent me a copy of that letter (as I desired and still desire you would), as I * Balfour, IV. 24, 25. Quoted by Lingard, Vol. VIII., p. 141. t Thurloe, I., 147. The Scotch or National Covenant was a bond of miion among the Scots themselves. The Solemn League and Covenant was made four or five years later between the Scotch and Puritan English Parliament. % Sir E. Walker’s Historical Discourse. Clarendon, Vol. III., pp. 365-6. IN IRELAND. 367 think my opinion was, that unless the King resolve entirely and without reserve, to give himself and his people up to the Covenant and Presbytery, he would not, upon any pretence of a possibility of meditating it, go into Scotland.’'^ He then expresses great apprehensions of the King’s danger, even in case he should resolve on a full compliance with the most rigid Cove- nanters. Yet in a letter to Ormonde from Lord Byron, then at Breda with the King, that nobleman assumes that Ormonde was quite in favour of the King coming to terms with the Scots, for he writes, “ I received by Mr. Seymour the letter your Excel- lence was pleased to honour me with: and have, in order to what I found by him was your opinion concerning his Majesty’s conjunction with the Scots, contributed my best endeavours to the effecting of it, as being the only probable means to divert those streams of men and money, which daily flow out of Eng- land into Ireland, and which wdll, doubtless in a short time, if not prevented, overwhelm it.”t The state of the Irish Nation after Cromwell’s successes was a sufficient cause for the assembling of the Congregation at James- town. Besides Charles’s agreement with the Scotch Com- missioners who waited on him at Breda on the 15th of March, had, through various channels, reached Ireland ; and further, it was asserted and believed that Ormonde had approved of that measure, and had even advised it. All was gloom and depression among the King’s supporters here. Such being the state of affairs, a number of bishops and other dignitaries assembled at Jamestown in the County Leitrim, on the 6th of August, 1650, for an interchange of views under circumstances so grave and perilous, and to determine what practical resolution should be adopted to protect religion and to save the country. The first step taken by the Congregation was to depute the Bishop of Dromore, and Dr. Kelly, Dean of Tuam, to wait on the Marquis of Ormonde, and to lay the views of the Prelates before him. These two delegates were the bearers of a letter to him, signed by all the prelates. They were also furnished with written in- * Carte, Vol. III., p. 607. t Carte’s Coll, of Original Papers, Vol. I., p. 333. The king’s agreement with the Scots did not stop the flow of men and money into Ireland, but it had the effect of turning many of his supporters in England against him. “ By a letter from a perfectly loyal person from England,” writes a person of quality, “I am advertised that it’s not credible how freely and voluntarily the people in Eng- land list themselves to go against the Scots ever since the King’s declaration came from thence.”— Vol. L, p. 417. See also Curry’s Civil Wars, Vol. II., p. 31. Obs — -Carte’s apologetic account of Charles’s agreement with the Scots and his taking of the Covenant is as disingenuous a piece of writing as could be met with. 868 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH structioDS as to the chief matters they should press upon his Excellency’s attention. These were four in number. 1. They were to call his Excellency’s attention to the vast destruction and desolation which had fallen on the kingdom in a few months. 2. They were to warn him, that the people “ seeing no visible army” for their defence, were in despair, and were inclined “to compound with the Parliament,” which would bring ruin on the King’s authority, on the Catholic Faith, and on the liberty of the nation. 3. “ You are,” the}^ say to the delegates, “ to protest before God, angels and men, in the name of the Congregation,” that we did our best to remove fears and jealousies from the people, but that we had not power to do it; “ the universal sense of the people being that fate doth wait on those times.”* 4. They are to beg of his Excellency to retire from the country, and to leave the King’s authority in the hands of trusty persons who will possess the affection and confidence of the people. And finally they are to press for an answer within a few days.-f- The letter and instructions were dated 10th of August. Two days later, on the 12th, without waiting for Ormonde’s reply, the assembly at Jamestown drew up and signed an excommuni- cation against all Catholics who would “ enlist under, feed, help, or adhere to his Excellency.” This was very hastily done. Why not wait for the answer they asked for ? It must be said, how- ever, that although drawn up on the 12th of August, the Excom- munication was only published on the 15th of September, at which date the King’s taking of the Covenant was fully known in Ireland. The Excommunication was published with this limitation, “ that the next General Assembly, which was soon to meet at Loughrea, should dispose of it as they thought proper.” The Excommunication was suspended in favour of the Catholics in Clanrickarde’s army, on the 16th of September, the day after its publication. This haste and fickleness were calculated to lessen the effects the Assembly at Jamestown intended the Excommunication should produce. The reason of the haste seems to have been, that it was known that Ormonde was collecting an army as quickly as he could, and the Prelates * The meaning of this obscure passage probably is, that Ireland is fated to have no success whilst its destinies are in the hands of Ormonde. There is, no doubt, that for a considerable time before this, all reliance on Ormonde had departed from the Catholics, lay and clerical. t Jamestown is small market-town of Leitrim, built on the Shannon, south of Carrick-on-Shannon. It was named after King James the First, who granted it to Sir Charles Coote, “together with several extensive landed estates in the county.” This was after James h.Sid planted Leitrim, as he had planted Ulster. There had been a Franciscan Monastery in the place before the plantation. IN IRELAND. 369 hoped the existence of the Excommunication, which was sure to become known without any formal publication, would deter Catholics from taking service under him. The Excommunication was accompanied by a “ Declaration,” which consisted of a number of charges against Ormonde. In the opening paragraph the Assembly prove their loyalty to the King, showing that they made the Peace of 1648 at a time when he was under restraint,and when neither theQueeu nor Prince could send them assistance. They signed that Peace “ when they could have agreed with the Parliament of England, upon as good or better conditions of religion, and the lives, liberties and estates of the people, than were obtained by the above Pacification; and thereby freed themselves from the danger of any invasion or war.” “ Let the world judge,” they say, “ if this be not an undeniable argument of loyalty.” The Peace having been concluded, the Catholic Confederates placed themselves cheerfully under his Majesty’s authority, and provided well nigh half a million of money, with magazines of corn, artillery, powder, &c. ; after which the Marquis of Ormonde “ became the Author of losing nearly the whole kingdom to God, King and Natives.” They also accuse him of giving important places in the army to untrustworthy men, who afterwards betrayed or deserted the Confederates; in this charge they especially refer to the officers of Inchiquin’s army. They complain that the system of administering justice pro- mised by the articles of the Peace was never put in practice, a cir- cumstance which greatly impeded its due administration. They assert “ that the Catholic subjects of Munster lived in slavery, under the Presidency of Lord Inchiquin; these being their judges that before were their enemies, and none of the Catholic nobility or gentry admitted to be of the tribunal.” “ The conduct of the army,” they say, “ was improvident and unfortunate. Nothing happened in Christianity more shameful than the disaster of Kathmines, near Dublin, where his Excellency (as it seemed to ancient travellers, and men of experience who viewed all) kept rather a mart of wares, a tribunal of pleadings, or a great inn of play, drinking and pleasure, than a well-ordered camp of souldiers.” They blame Ormonde for the loss of Drogheda, Wexford, Ross and many other places, dwelling in an especial manner upon the surrender of Ross. All these things, they say, have compelled the Congregation of Archbishops, Bishops, &c., “to declare against the continuance of his Majesty’s authority in the person of the Marquis of 2 A 370 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Ormonde and they further declare that the people are no longer obliged to obey the orders and commands of the said Marquis of Ormonde/^ but are (until an Assembly of the Nation can be called) to serve against the common enemy [meaning the Parliament] “for the defence of the Catholic Religion, his Majesty’s interest, their liberties, lives and fortunes, in pur- suance of the Oath of Association, and to observe and obey, in the meantime, the form of Government the said Congregation shall prescribe, until it be otherwise ordered by an Assembly, or until, upon application to his Majesty, he settle the same other- wise. ^ Ormonde defended himself against these charges with his usual hauteur and ability, and a good deal of angry correspon- dence passed between him and the Prelates at Jamestown, without any practical result. He called a General Assembly at Loughrea (where he had for some time resided in one of Clan- rickarde’s houses), which met on the 15th of November, 1650. It consisted almost altogether of laymen. Sir R. Blake was chosen its chairman. To this Assembly Ormonde announced his inten- tion of retiring from the kingdom. To make this communication appears to have been the only reason for calling its members together, for no other business seems to have been done on the occasion. f There had been several meetings or Councils of the Irish Pre- lates in 1649 and 1650. The first of these was held at Clon- macnoise, December, 1649, commencing on the 4th of that month. They met as they said “ of their own motion” (proprio motii) to exchange views with regard to the dangers which then threatened religion. The meeting was large. The four Arch- bishops and sixteen bishops attended ; other dioceses were represented by ecclesiastics duly accredited (procuratores), and several heads of religious houses were also present. They came to an agreement on some points, the chief of which were : — * Cox, Appendix XLVIII., pp. 178, et seq. t The Excommunication from Jamestown was signed by 10 bishops, 3 Pro- curators [representatives of bishops], 13 Heads of Religious Houses and Theologiaus. The Excommunication was accepted and ratified unanimously by 6 bishops then sitting at Galway (who probably could not get safely to Jamestown), and was signed by them on the 23rd August, 1650, the first signa- ture being Thomas, Archbishop of Cashel. This was Most Rev. Thomas Walsh, who filled that See from 1626 to 1654. In 1632, he wrote to Propaganda, “e loco refugii nostriP giving an account of the Ecclesiastical province of Cashel. The excommunication was a major ipso facto one. The Marquis of Ormonde was excommunicated by name, together with all who would help, or adhere to him, or hear arms for him. — Lih. H., 1 col. VII. Record Tower, Dublin Castle. IN’ IKELAND. 371 I. They enjoin prayer, fasting and general confessions. II. That the Catholics were not to expect anything in favour of religion from the “ common enemy” commanded by Cromwell, III. They enjoin amity and union. The sowers of dissensions to be punished by their lawful superiors. IV. A band of robbers called Idle Boys were excommunicated for robbing their neighbours, and levying contribu- tions on them. The decrees are signed Walterus Confertensis. Sec. — Dr. Walter Lynch, Bishop ofClonfert. The Commissioners of Trust, a body vested with much power but possessing little influence, having replaced the dissolved Confederation, there was no organization through which Ormonde could reach the Catholics, except their bishops. It would seem, therefore, ta have been his design that they should sit permanently in some place where he would be near enough to influence their deliberations. In the beginning of March, 1650, he invited twenty-four of them to meet him in Limerick, which city he, doubtless, intended to make his head-quarters, Dublin having passed out of his hands through his own fault. But as the Limerick people refused to receive him with his full unshackled authority, that design had to be given up. How- ever, the bishops and some of the principal lay Catholics went to Limerick, where Ormonde held a Conference with them. Two points he put strongly before them, without which, he said, nothing could be done for the advancement of his Majesty’s service or the preservation of the people. These points were : — (1.) that the people should be induced to place full confidence in him; (2.) that Limerick should be persuaded to receive a garrison, and obey his orders. The Prelates, on their side, drew up a paper containing eleven articles, which they called “ Bemedies proposed to his Excellency for removing the discontents and distrusts of the people, and for advancing his Majesty’s service.” The chief of these E-emedies were as follows. 1 . The establishment of aPrivy Council is recom- mended, according to ancient custom ; such Privy Council to consist of peers and others, “ Natives of the kingdom.” This proviso did not exclude Anglo-Irish. 2. It would seem that the management of the army, as to numbers, pay, &c., had gone into great confusion, and for this they proposed immediate and radical remedies. 3. They strongly urge that in the reorganization of the army those who had proved" themselves untrustworthy, and those against whom distrust was justly entertained, should be excluded from places of power and authority. And indeed the siege of 372 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Limerick by Iretoo, which came on soon after, showed the necessity of this “ remedy.” 4. They called for proper tribunals for administering justice according to the Articles of the Peace. 5. They suggest that a proper balance sheet should be demanded from the Receiver-General, who, fora long time had rendered no account of the large sums he had received. 6. They complain of the extortions and oppressions of the officers of the army, and ask that a Council of War should be appointed to take charge of the affairs of the army. 7 . They ask that no impo- sitions, free quarters, &c., should be placed on the people, except by the Commissioners of Trust. Ormonde replied seriatim to the eleven Remedies proposed by the Bishops. He repeats what he had said to them a short time before, that there must be full reliance placed in him as the King’s representative, and that the duty of the Prelates was to remove the “causeless distrusts” that were maliciously infused into the people’s minds, and which “slackened and partly withdrew” obedience to his Majesty as vested in him, Ormonde. He does not, he says, see the want of a Privy Council, as he thinks the Commissioners of Trust, by “the knowledge and ability” they possessed, the most reliable advisers he could have. Now Ormonde knew as well as the Prelates themselves the reason for proposing a Privy Council ; which was, that all power should not be in his hands, as was vir- tually the case, inasmuch as the Commissioners of Trust w^ere his mere creatures. By this uncontrolled power he kept a number of persons about him, whom the country distrusted and rightly distrusted, for they were partly his spies and partly his tools ; but Ormonde, of course, ignores this and gives the Bishops a perfunctory answer. Consulting and relying on the Commis- sioners of Trust meant, in the case, consulting and relying upon himself, for they were the merest ciphers as far as any partici- pation in the government was concerned. He put them forward as important people when it suited his purpose. When he did not wish to follow a certain course or to adopt certain suggestions, all he had to say was that the Commissioners of Trust were against them. As to the other points in the Bishop’s ‘‘Remedies,” he expressed a readiness to meet their wishes, and to give his best consideration to their proposal, but he yielded nothing. This was Ormonde all over — specious words, postponement, no con- cession. In his reply to the eleventh and last article of the “ Remedies,” he acknowledges that the Articles of the Peace were infringed “ by unavoidable necessity,” in order to provide for the army ; yet he would not consent to the appointment of a IN IRELAND. 373 Council of War, which would put the management of it on a proper footing. Ormonde, in a word, was to be everything; under his orders the Catholics were to continue to shed their blood in the King’s service, whilst their grievances and oppres- sions were always to remain in the background, or if ever brought forward by the sufferers, they were to be minimised by Ormonde, and smothered over with softie sweet diplomatic phraseology. Ormonde “ appointed two meetings to be at Loughrea [the first on the 19th of March, and the second on the 25th of April, 1650], and summoned thither all the Catholic Bishops, as many of the Nobility as could with any security come thither ; the chief gentlemen of quality in the parts adjacent, and several officers of the array, which being met together, he gave them, in the first place, an answer in writing to the grievances which had been presented to him at the former meeting in which,” according to Clarendon, “ he made evident bow much they were mistaken in much of the matters of fact, and that what was really amiss pro- ceeded from themselves, and their not observing the orders and rules they were bound by, and could not be prevented by him . . . He showed them a letter he had lately received from his master the King, bearing date the second February from Jersey [in reply to one he had written to him in December], in which his Majesty signified his pleasure to him Hhat in case of the con- tinuance of disobedience in the people and contempt for his authority, his Lieutenant should withdraw himself and his Majesty’s authority out of the kingdom.’ This, which was evidently intended to put pressure on the Assembly, had a very considerable effect. They made him a dutiful reply, in which, amongst other things, they said that “as they had already by the expending of their substance in an extraordinary measure, and their lives upon all occasions, abun- dantly testified their sincere and immovable affections to preserve his Majesty’s rights and interests entire to him, so they would, for the future, with like cheerfulness, endeavour to over- come all difficulties which the enemy’s power and success had laid in their way.”t The Marquis on this changed his mind, “ and declined his purpose of quitting the kingdom” if he had seriously entertained the project. This was during the earlier days of May, 1650. * Clarendon’s Historical Review, &c., p. 120. t Ibid., p. 121. 374 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH CHAPTER XIX. The disastrous battle of Scariff Hollis had caused Ormonde to turn his auxious attention to Limerick ; it was the last impor- tant place held for the King, except Galway. He proceeded to Limerick, and used every means in his power to induce the citizens to receive a garrison from him. To this they did not consent, neither did they, in the first instance, in any decided way, refuse it. But it is clear from their negociations with the Marquis, that they had a strong disinclination to put their city in his hands, or in those of his creatures. Ormonde and his clever, undeviating eulogist. Carte, pretend that this was all done by the clergy, in order to have authority centred in themselves. It is not necessary to go back on Ormonde’s treacheries, but I may repeat that the Catholic clergy worked and bled with the most heroic resignation for the cause of their religion and King, which they regarded as substantially the one cause, and they justly refused to trust Ormonde, who, on every occasion, exercised all his ability and cunning to use them in fighting for the royal cause, and at the same time to keep them in a state of abject slavery. We need not go far to account for the action of the people of Limerick in refusing a garrison from Ormonde, whom they well knew was not to be trusted ; for royalist though he was, he played notoriously false to his King in giving up Dublin to the English rebels, in the person of Michael Jones, and he was a traitor to the Catholics and false to the King in withholding from them the concessions, which the King ordered him to grant them. What wonder that Catholic Limerick should refuse a garrison of his choosing ? They resolved to accept no garrison from Ormonde, but expressed their willingness to admit a gar- rison of Ulstermen, if commanded by the Bishop of Limerick, Hugh O’Neill or Murtagh O’Brien. This was right and reason- able, but they went further and denied the Marquis the courtesy due to his position as Viceroy. This he felt deeply. It was a proceeding not to be palliated, and somewhat unworthy of a brave, high-minded people. A garrison exclusively of Ulstermen under Hugh O’Neill, the famous defender of Clonmel, was at length admitted. Ludlow cherished a great hatred for Cromwell, and no doubt Cromwell knew this, for, to do Ludlow justice, he did not seek to IN IRELAND. 375 conceal it, in the House of Commons or elsewhere. On Crom- well’s return to England after his Irish campaign, he took, or pretended to take, Ludlow into his confidence, and after some- time he proposed to him to go to Ireland as general of the horse, and second in command to Ireton. Ludlow says his private affairs were in such confusion, that he endeavoured to avoid the employment ; but his friends suggested that the thing was proposed by the wily Oliver to get him out of the way, lest he should prove an obstruction to his designs. Ludlow did not concur in this opinion, saying, with apparent modesty, that he did not believe himself so considerable,” as to be regarded as one who stood in the way of Cromwell’s designs. Oliver con- tinued to urge the appointment upon him, and he, at length, acquiesced. The first weighty undertaking resolved on by Ireton was the Siege of Limerick, and he lost no time in preparing for it. The A^phorismical author says, his army was partly or wholly before that city for about a year and a half — a year at the Munster side, and half a year at the Connaught side, after he had crossed the river near Killaloe.^ This statement is substantially correct. Ireton was of course unable to invest Limerick completely until a part of his forces had crossed the Shannon. The troops told off for that service were at Castle Connell and in the neighbourhood of Killaloe and O’Brien’s Bridge, from the time he had first appeared before Limerick, watching a favourable opportunity to get over. On Sunday, the 6th of October, 1650, the Parliamentary army appeared within three miles of Limerick, and on the 7th, having approached still nearer, Ireton demanded a passage for his troops through the city, to which, if his request were granted, he pro- mised protection. As the Mayor refused,t Ireton held a council of war, wherein it was resolved “ not to proceed by way* of force” against Limerick at that time, on account of the season being far advanced, and for other reasons. But it was agreed to build a bridge at Castle Connell, a place which had been inspected by Ireton some days before. Thus we see that whilst a part of Ireton’s army remained in the neighbourhood of Limerick, another division of it was, at the same time, placed at Castle Connell to make preparations for crossing the Shannon, which * In the Co. Clare, which was at that time regarded as a Connaught county, t Three or four months earlier, in June, “Cromwell sent propositions to Limerick offering them the free exercise of their religion, enjoyment of their estates, churches and church-livings, a free trade and commerce, and no garri- son to be pressed upon them, provided they would give a free passage to his forces through the city into the county of Clare.” — Carte's Ormonde, Vol. II., p. 123. 376 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH was not accomplislied until the 2nd of June, 1651. So that the Parliamentary army was eight months at Castle Connell before they were able to get to the Clare side.* * * § The first important step made by the army of the Parliament towards crossing the river was taking possession of a small island in mid-stream between their camp and Killaloe. They at once planted some guns upon it, and from this vantage ground were enabled to observe Castlehaven’s movements and the progress of his defences. The account which Ludlow gives of the crossing the Shannon by Ireton’s army cannot be reconciled with that given by Castlehaven. Ludlow says that he and Ireton out-manceuvred Castlehaven and so crossed the river ; CastJehaven says they bribed two of his officers, Kelly and Fennell, and by this means got possession of the passes at O’Brien’s Bridge and Killaloe.f Be this as it may, Ireton having settled on the points he would try to cross at, had boats and cots brought overland from Dromineer, some of which were put into the water above Killaloe, others at the island already in his possession. J The boats were placed at Killaloe as a feint to alarm the Confederates. Being in rough water there, they could not be made use of, even if it were desirable to do so. O’Brien’s Bridge was the point selected for making the real effort to cross the river. Both Ireton and the Lieut.-General commanded there; Sir Hardress Waller being left with the rest of the army in the vicinity of Killaloe. About daybreak on the 2nd of June (Monday), Captain Draper was ordered to cross opposite to O’Brien’s Bridge, which, with 3 files of firelocks,” he succeeded in doing. Having gained land on the Clare side, he fastened ropes to the bank which, extending across the river, facilitated the towing of the boats over. Within an hour 500 men had crossed.§ Six troopers passed over with the 3 files of musketeers in the first instance. Having unsaddled their horses, they caused them to swim by the boat, and safely landed * Castleconnelly a small town partly in Tipperary and partly in Limerick, was then in possession of the Parliamentary troops. It is about 6 miles N.E. of Limerick on the Shannon. O'Brien's bridge is a village at the Clare side of the river, nearly opposite Castleconnell. Killaloe, also at the Clare side, is 12 miles above Limerick. It was along the reach of the Shannon, between Castleconnell and Killaloe, that Ireton’s forces and those of Castlehaven were face to face with each other for so long a period. t Castlehaven asserts without doubt that Kelly sold the pass at O’Brien’s bridge. He speaks less confidently of Fennell’s treachery ; but he would be lenient to him, because he was one of Ormonde’s tools. t “ A cot is a kind of vessel of one piece hollowed, and some of them capable of thirty men.” Diary of Parliamentary Forces ; Aphor. Disc., Vol. Ill,, p. 228. § Ibid, 230. IN IRELAND. 377 tliem at tlie other side.* * * § One will naturally inquire what was Castlehaven and his two thousand horse and foot doing, while Ireton’s forces were getting across and establishing themselves at the Clare side? Here is the commander’s own explanation: “For some days past, I kept a guard towards Connaught, [whence he was expecting Coote on ‘his back,’ as he said], when Ireton, by treachery of the officer, one Captain Kelly, made himself master of a pass called Brien’s Bridge. Whilst I was hastening with some troops to oppose him, having left the defence of the pass of Killaloe to Colonel Fennell, he cowardly or treacherously quitted it, and with his party fled into Limerick, where upon the reddi- tion of the town, which was not long after, Ireton, with more than his ordinary justice, hanged him.”f Castlehaven having, as he says, letters from the Lord Deputy to hasten and join him, did so, and found him in Loughrea. Ludlow makes the passage of the river at O’Brien’s Bridge a very important affair. “ Some of the enemy’s horse came and skirmished with ours,” he writes, “ and later about a thousand of their foot advancing, our horse was commanded to retire, which they did with some reluctancy ; but the hasty march of their foot was retarded by our guns, which we had planted on a hill at our side of the river, from whence we fired so thick upon them, that they were forced to retreat under the shelter of a rising ground, where after they had been awhile, and considered what to do, finding ours coming over apace to them, instead of attacking us, they began to think it high time to provide against our falling upon them ; and having sent to all their guards upon the river to draw off, they retreated farther through the woods into their own quarters.’’^ The Diary of the Parliamentary forces agrees in the main with Ludlow about the passage of the river, but does not make so much of it. “ The enemy,” it says, “ at first with some horse and foote gave opposition, but by the loud shouting of our men, from the other side, and sounding of trumpets, and discharg- ing our great shot, and by shot made from the castle and house last taken, it pleased God to strike such terror into their hearts that they quitted their works and fled.”§ * Ludlow’s Memoirs, p. 347. t Castlehaven’s Memoirs, p. 138. “ Some say he (Fennell) was carried to Cork, and there pleaded for his defence, not only this service, but how he had betrayed me before Youghal ; but his judges would not hear him on his merits, but bid him clear himself of the murders laid to his charge.”— / 62 c?. t Ludlow’s Memoirs, p. 348. § Diary of Parliamentary Forces, Aphor. Dis., Vol. Ill,, pp. 230-1. Colonel Ingoldsby with 300 horse crossed opposite Castle Connell, whilst the main body was crossing at O’Brien’s Bridge, and had a brush with the Confederate troops who were flying towards Limerick. 378 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Whatever orders the letters of the Lord Deputy to Castle- haven may have contained, the successful crossing of the Shannon by Ireton left him no choice ; he was compelled to shift his quarters without delay. This he did as we learn from the following passages : — “ Castlehaven (whose quarters were at Killaloe) had, the night before, heard that the Lord President (Sir Charles Coote), and the Commissary General were advanced as farre as Gortinsegory in the County of Galway, about \hlank'\ miles from Killaloe, which was but a false alarm ; yet did that also contribute much to our worke ; the Lord in that [as'^ in that apprehended noise of chariots and horsemen, where none were, he made the Syrian flee besieging Samaria, 2 Kings, 7:6:] causing our enemies a general feare that by the coming on of that our party they might be by them and us enclosed and destroyed.” “ Therefore conceived they it high time to provide for theire security ; yet for colouring theire so goeing away, Castlehaven gave out that he would hasten to join with Clanrickard for op- posing Sir Charles Coote, and that lesse numbers than those with him would siifiice to oppose those attempting over the river. But that his marching away was soone turned to plain fleeing, newes being brought him of our so landing at Brian’s bridge, whereupon they all fled and quitted their defences about Killaloe, and gave ours there also a quiet landing. For about breake of day at the wood above Killaloe our men drawne thither were some of them landed on the other side without opposition, notwithstanding great number of the enemy there standing and looking on a while, as amazed not finding theire hands but after fleeing every- where.”t Castlehaven himselfe fled leaveing his tent, plate, and other conveniences for a prey. We found there 50 bundles of good pikes and 5 barrells of powder, with bullets and match and pistols and carabine bullets in good proportions, also many pioneers’ tooles, and in the trenches and workes on the river we found many armes and tooles, those who should have used them being fled with their generall.”J “ Castlehaven’s forces were (by the country) numbered to us for 5 regiments of horse and as many of foote, but nothing * Partly erased in MS. t This account would agree very well with the opinion that Fennell was a traitor. “ Not finding their hands” — not finding them so as to make use of them. ~J. O’R. % Castlehaven went to Loughrea, where Clanrickarde was with about 300 horse ; the remainder of his men went to Limerick or dispersed. IN IRELAND. 879 answerable in numbers ; yet more than enough (looking to man) for opposing anything we could doe considering the difficulty of passing the river, which we found dangerous enough without any opposition otherwaies.’^* Ireton having placed a garrison at Killaloe, moved his army towards Limerick the day after he had passed the Shannon. On coming to a place called the Pass of Ferboe about a mile from Limerick, the parliamentary army found it defended against them by about 800 horse and some foot, sent out from the city for that purpose. Ingoldsby and his party, as already stated, crossed the river below O’Brien’s Bridge, and thus became the van of the army in its march on Limerick. He, therefore, came face to face with the defenders of the pass before the main body had reached it. He forced the pass, routed those who held it, and pursued them towards the city, killing, the account says, some 150 of them and taking a number of prisoners. Ireton arrived soon after and took up a position within the pass. He ordered a party of horse and foot “ to ly at distance” on the Munster side of Limerick ; which probably meant, that those troops who had previously retired to some distance from the city at that side, were now to approach nearer to it. On the same day Colonel Sankey joined them with reinforcements from Clonmel. They spent Friday, the 13th of June, in praising the Lord ; returning Him thanks for bringing them over the Shannon, and for having sent them good news from Connaught about the doings of that “ bahe of grace” Coote.j* On the next day Ireton summoned Limerick to surrender, and gave emphasis to the summons by opening fire on the Castle of Thomond bridge with 28 guns and two mortars, whilst two other mortars played upon the town. On the 16th a drum [a messenger] from the town announced that the citizens wished to treat, and brought also the request that Commissioners would be appointed for that purpose, that hostages should be given and a cessation pro- claimed during the sitting of the Commissioners. Ireton accepted this offer to treat of a surrender, but refused the request for a cessation and the giving of hostages. Six Commissioners were appointed on each side. Those for the city were, Major-General Purcell, W. Stackpoole, the Recorder, Col. Butler, Jeffrey Barron, who had been one of the Supreme * Diary of Parliamentary Forces. Aphor. Disc., Vol. III., pp. 230-1. Ibid., p. 232. t The day of thanksgiving was ordered by Ireton in a very elaborate address to the army. It was as pious and puritanical as could be, but it wanted the ring of inspiration which we find in the same sort of documents when coming from the great Oliver. 880 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Council, Mr. Baggot,and Alderman Fanning ; the Commissioners atireton’s side were, Major-General Waller, Colonel Cromwell, Major Smith, Adjutant-General Allen, General Ludlow, and another whose name Ludlow had forgotten when writing his Memoirs.^ “We met,” writes Ludlow, “ in a tent placed between the town and our camp, where we dined together and treated of conditions for several days ; but they having great expectations of relief, either by the King’s success against us in Scotland, or by the drawing together of their own parties in Ireland, who were able to form an army more numerous than ours, insisted upon such excessive terms, that the treaty was broken up with- out coming to any conclusion.”! The attack was continued against the Castle “ beyond” Thomond Bridge {^.e. at Ireton s side of it), and a breach having been made, “ one Mr. Hacket, a stout gentleman of the guard,” was appointed to lead a storming party through the breach to attempt its capture. They suc- ceeded, although not more than twenty in number. Ireton encouraged by this success at once began to prepare for an attack on King’s Island, a large tract of ground at the north of the city. Ludlow estimates its extent at from 40 to 50 acres. It is enclosed between the Shannon and the Abbey river, and it was on the southern portion of it the then city of Limerick stood. Boats were prepared and floats sufB.cient to transport three hundred men at once; orders were given to move down the river about midnight, and 3 regiments of foot and one of horse were appointed to be wafted over. The first 800, being all foot, commanded by Lieut.-Colonel Waller, having landed on the island, marched up to the Confederates’ breast work, where they got such a hot reception, that most of them were forced into the water, and all either killed or drowned except two or three who returned to the camp with the woful tidings. During the progress of the siege much fighting was carried on not only around the walls of Limerick, but at places a consider- able distance from it. Strong detachments of the Parliamentary troops were sent through the country in search of the Confede- rate forces, and to look out for provisions, which at times were very short with the large force before the city. One of those expeditions, consisting of 1,000 horse, was led by Ludlow towards Connaught to open communications with Coote, who having * Ludlow’s Memoirs, p. 356. The commissiouers who represented the city w’ere divided thus : — 2 for the soldiers, 2 for the city, and 2 for the clergy. — Diary of Parliamentary Forces. Aphor. Disc., Vol. III., p. 240. t Memoirs, 356. Ibid., 357. IN IRELAND. 381 been made Lord President of that province, had entered it by- way of Ballyshannon. Ireton, whilst vigilant and active as a general, was not neglectful of other means of success. He opened communications with some traitors within the walls of Limerick, even before his troops had got to the Connaught side of it, as we learn from an entry in the diary of an officer of the Parlia- mentary forces under date of May 20, [1651]. “This night,” he writes, “ was there expectation of a designe on Limerick by correspondency with some within. Coll. Ingoldesby (an active and vigilant officer and well meriting of the service) appeareing in the worke had placed himselfe conveniently with 1,000 horse, foote and dragoones, neere the city for taking hold of the opportunity to be offered, but (I knew not how) the plot failing, as few in that kinde were found to take, ours retired without losse although under shot of the walls.”^ The supplies so plentifully granted to Cromwell during his Irish campaign were continued to Ireton. Ships from England laden with munitions of war and provisions began, after some time, to appear in the Shannon, and the first foothold secured at the Connaught side of the river was obtained by a Parlia- mentary ship under command of one Captain Branby. On the 29th of May news reached Ireton at Killaloe from that com- mander, that he had taken Sir Tege McMahon’s castle, on “the other” [Connaught] side of the river, Branby further stating that he had fortified it, and had repulsed “ the enemy” in an attempt to recover it.f The Marquis of Ormonde having fallen into discredit with the Catholics, and despairing of being able to effect anything for the royal cause under existing circumstances, took ship for France at Galway, on the 6th of December, O.S., 1650. He appointed the Marquis of Clanrickarde, Lord Deputy, in his absence. Thus, at that time, there were two Lords Lieutenant, Ormonde and Cromwell ; but being both absent from the country, they were represented by two Lords Deputy, Clanrickarde and Ireton. Clanrickarde had a good army in Connaught, where he was really powerful, but according to Castlehaven its strength was not more than half of Coote’s. Lord Muskerry was at the head of a pretty numerous force in Munster, but was “ waited on” ('^.6. watched) by the Lord Broghill, who foiled every attempt of his to relieve Limerick. There was an army in the field in Leinster, commanded by Colonel John Fitz- * Diary of Parliamentary Forces ; Aphor. Disc., Vol. III., p. 227. t Diary of Parliamentary Forces ; Aphor. Disc., Vol. III., p. 228. 382 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Patrick, numbering 4,000 or 5,000 ; but it was more noted for its exactions from the people than for the perfor- mance of any substantial service.* It was hoped that Olan- rickarde could have held Galway, and with it the most part of Connaught, but the hope was dashed by Coote’s bold invasion of that Province in June, 1651. Besides being a heartless savage, he quite overmatched Clanrickarde in generalship. The army that Coote led into Connaught was drafted from various garrisons in Ulster. A good part of them mustered at Ballyshannon, after they had crossed the river Erne, and here Coote joined them with a party of horse and foot, and took the command. Having rested four days, they marched towards Sligo, where they were joined by more detachments. A party was sent out to discover the whereabouts of Clanrickarde ; they found that he had taken possession of the passes of the Curlew mountains, over which Coote wanted to pass. So strongly was Clanrickarde posted there, that Coote felt it would be a most perilous undertaking for him to attempt to force a passage. He, therefore, prudently determined to seek a passage by some other route ; “ and accordingly, leaving the Curlews on the left hand, he turned towards the sea, and by strange and unexpected ways, by Ballaghy passef got undiscovered into the county Mayo. Herein they gained the advantage of open ground for their horse, and gained in ground of the enemie neere two days’ march, who were now in the reare of them.”f Clanrickarde, finding Coote had got past him without his knowledge, followed him, and sent parties in different directions to warn the people to put their cattle and provisions out of the reach of Coote’s army. On the 31st of May, Coote reached Athenry, whence he marched to Loughrea with the hopes of engaging Clanrickarde who was there, but the latter avoided giving him battle, for which he was not to blame, as Coote’s army was much superior to his in numbers. Coote pushed on to Portumna, a Castle of Clanrickarde’s, which, after some resist- ance, was given up to him on conditions. When Ludlow and his party of 1,000 horse had gone about forty miles westward, news reached him that Coote was at Port- * After some time Fitzpatrick made terms with the Parliamentarians, pro- mising to lay down his arms on a certain day, and transport 4,000 men to Spain. For promoting this design, he was excommunicated. His men deserted him in great numbers and placed themselves under Colonel Grace, Colonel Lewis O’Moore, and others of their ofiS.cers. — Aphor.Disc., Vol. III., p. 44. t A village in the parish of Achonry in the County Sligo, but on the frontier of Mayo, on the road to Swinford. % Diary of Parliamentary Forces. Aphor. Disc., Vol. iii., pp. 232-3. IN IRELAND. 383 umna. “ Upon this notice,” he writes, leaving my party advantageously posted in a place furnished with provisions for themselves and horses, I took with me sixty horse and went to Portumna, to be informed more particularly concerning the state of affairs. At my arrival I understood that an attempt had been made upon the place, wherein our men had been repulsed, but that the enemy having a large line to keep, and many poor people within, fearing to hazard another assault, had agreed to surrender upon articles next morning, which was done accordingly.”* Ludlow, having found Coote’s party “ in good condition ; and able to deal with the enemies at that side,” began his march back to Limerick, taking some castles on his return journey. Coote left a garrison in Portumna Castle, and turned west- ward towards Athlone, to take which was probably a chief design of his from the beginning. Sir Robert Talbot was then gover- nor there for the Confederates. This stronghold, the key of Connaught from the Leinster side, does not seem to have offered any great resistance, for the articles agreed upon when it was surrendered bear date the 18th of June, 1651, whilst, as stated above, it was the 31st of May when Coote reached Athenry, whence he proceeded to Loughrea, probably two days’ march, and thence to Portumna, where he had some days’ delay. After this he turned his face westward again towards Athlone, keeping at the Connaught side of the river. This was a journey of several days, so that he could not have been more than a week before Athlone until it was surrendered. The articles, which are not very stringent, were signed on the part of the Confeder- ates by Sir James Dillon and Sir Robert Talbotf During the last days of August or the beginning of Septem- ber, Ireton, accompanied by Ludlow, taking with them about 4,000 men, horse and foot, made a dash into Clare, chiefly in search of provisions, which were sorely needed by the large army then before Limerick, as also to have a brush with the Con- * Memoirs, p. 350. + Aphor. Discovery, Vol. III., p. 215. Men, provisions, and arms continued to be received from England, as the following entry shows : — “ Friday 27 June, the Major General returned to head quarters from Waterford, bringing to us 2,500 men, new recruits there lately landed. Then also did we hear of 2,000 men more comeing out of England, and that there was landed at Waterford £4,000 and 4,000 stand of arms.” Diary of Parliamentary Forces. Aphor. Disc., p. 241. “We heard that the treasure landed at Waterford was £50,000 ; that there were brought thither 500 barrels of powder, 6,000 barrels of wheat, 7,000 muskets, .... and that a vessel with w’heat and rye of 200 tunnes was coming to the leagure.” Ibid., p. 249. 884 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH federates, should they come across them. Of these they sighted several bodies, now and then, but never got within fighting distance of them. The two commanders, after some time, divided their troops into two parties, hopiug thereby to catch or hem in the Confederates somewhere or other, but all to no purpose. Their whole success consisted in bringing some horses and cattle back to head quarters. In their absence a sortie in force was made from the city, so secretly and with such rapidity, that the besiegers were taken completely by surprise, and were for a time in great peril, but, being reinforced, they held their ground, and O’Neill’s men returned in good order to the city under shelter of their guns. The affair seems to have so frightened Sir Hardress Waller, who commanded in the absence of Ireton and Ludlow, that he lost no time in com- municating with them, and Ireton at once returned to Limerick, leaving Ludlow with 2,000 men to attempt the taking of Clare Castle ; but failing in this he too returned, and in con- junction with Ireton, began to make preparations for a winter siege.* Meanwhile numbers of people endeavoured to get out of the town. “ The Deputy commanded them to return, and threat- ened to shoot any that should attempt to come out in the future : but this not being sufficient to make them desist, he caused two or three to be taken in order to be executed, and the rest to be whipped back into the town. One of those that were to be hanged was the daughter of an old man, who was in that number which was to be sent back : he desired that he might be hanged in the room of his daughter, but that was refused, and he with the rest driven back to the town.” Ludlow says one or twm were hanged in sight of the city to terrify those within and restrain them from coming out, but that those who were hanged were condemned for other crimes.f Ireton, having for a year and more used every means in his power to take Limerick, but without success, was greatly distressed at the prospect of a winter siege. He and his men were already utterly weary of the business. There was sick- ness without, and Hugh O’Neill and the plague, two powerful enemies, were within ready to pounce upon them ; their ranks were thinned, too, by fatigue and the effects of a climate to which they were unaccustomed. The author of the Aphor. Discovery says they lost 8,000 men before Limerick in a year. Yet the end did not seem near. There was no prospect before * Ludlow’s Memoirs, p. 368. t Memoirs, Vol. I., p. 369. IN IRELAND. 385 them but a continuation of their efforts through the winter which no amount of preparation could disarm of its deadly influence ; and should the plague rush out among them in good earnest, a very probable contingency, there was no fore- casting what would be the end. Ireton’s position was narrowed to this — he must either make a supreme effort of some kind or raise the siege. To raise the siege would bring disgrace if not ruin upon him, so he resolved upon the supreme effort, which was to try bribery instead of bullets. The Aphor- ismical author quaintly says: — “By this later discussion of affairs the warie general doe comence to attempt the victorie by silver-plate bulletts fas failinge in the ordinarie of other metal), dispatched several addresses under Major-General Neylle, importinge high protestations of great preferments if he yielded both citty and person. But this gentleman was soe honorable, that for a world did not betraye the trust reposed on him, by the kingdome, alleadginge in his result that he was intrusted therein by the consent of both government, cittye, and new elected protector of the kingdome, his Highnesse the Duke of Lorraine,* and upon the undertakinge thereof, did promise to keep it for a twelvemonth, and that much (prayse to God) now finished, did intende to keep it (though not relieved) for a twelvemonth more, which expired, if his Lordship had the patience to waite upon it till then, as he did see reason, was willinge to complye with his Lordship’s desire in any law- ful and honorable atonement. Interim humbly desired his Lordship, as well to pardon him, as not to trouble himself in any such matter, as too foreign to his being ; which is. Sir, to be your humble servant Hugh 0’Neylle.”t * In his reply to a summons from Sir Hardress Waller, dated 16th January, 1650, O’Neill says : — “ I am entrusted with this place from my Lord Lieutenant to maintain it for the use of his Majesty King Charles, which I resolve, by God s assistance, to perform, even to the effusion of the last drop of my blood.” Aphor. Disc., Ap. p. xvii. p. 180. The above letter was w'ritten eight or mine months later, when it was supposed Lorraine had become Protector of Ireland. t Aphorismical Discovery, Vol. III., p. 19. It would seem that an attempt was also made to bribe Dr. Terence O’Brien, bishop of Emly. In the Acts of a General Chapter of the Dominican order held in Borne in 1656, and presided over by Fr. John Baptist de Marines, General of the Order, the following passage occurs, regarding the Bishop of Emly: — “Cum Anno 1651 ageret in Civitate Limericeusi quam tunc Henricus Irton, Cromwelli gener, verusque Hibernias Procpmwellus, atroci obsidione stringebat, praeclarum integritatis, atque constantiae specimen dedit, siquidem h, praenominato Haereticorum Ante- signano tentatus seorsim, oblatis quadraginta aureorum millihus, et secura quocunque vellet emigrandi licentia mod6 urbe excederet, nec ejus deditionem pergeret impedire fortissimd respuit, praeeligens Catholicis civibus ad mortem usque assistere, quam haereticorum Salvo Conductu, auroque fulgere, aut secure deliciari.” Hibernia Dominicana^ p. 488. 2 B 386 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH The proposal to O’Neill having been thus rejected by that chivalrous soldier, Ireton applied to Fennell who received his overtures favourably. Fennell being well known to Ireton through former treasons, it may seem strange that he did not apply to him in the first instance. But this is easily accounted for. Fennell was a subordinate officer, and could only play the part of an ordinary traitor, in which he might fail as he did at Clonmel; but if O’Neill came into Ireton’s views success would be assured, and the affair would stand before the world as a real victory — a regular defeat of O’Neill. In the other way it could bear no such aspect; and hence necessity rather than choice drove Ireton to treat with Fennell. For some time councils had been divided within the city Ireton knew this, for, of course, he used every means to inform himself of the condition and views of the besieged ; so he, Ludlow tells us, “ endeavoured by letters and messages to foment the division, declaring against several persons by name that were most active and obstinate for holding out, that they should have no benefit by the articles to be agreed upon, severely inveighing ao-ainst a generation of men he called soldiers of fortune, that inade a trade of war, and valued not the lives or happiness of the people.”* It is not easy to get, with accuracy, at the state of feeling in Limerick from the time Ireton began to draw his forces round it, until it was finally surrendered to him. There was division within its walls, but it was not the ordinary division of citizens into two opposite parties ; for there were at least three parties, besides a certain number of persons who were not committed to any of them, agreeing to the views of one party at one time, and the views of another at another. Ormonde, as we have seen, endeavoured to get the command of the city, and to take up his residence there, but the opposition to this proposal was so great that it had to be abandoned. Being the King’s representative, people were timid about showing open hostility to him ; but openly and covertly the feelings of the great majority of the citizens were clearly manifested against admitting him. They knew his antecedents and they refused to trust him, believing that it would be neither safe nor prudent to give him the com- * Memoirs, pp. 369-70. O’Neill is, no doubt, the chief soldier of fortune alluded to by Ireton. O’Neill had come to Ireland to fight for the land and the religion of his fathers, having, he says elsewhere, resigned an honourable posi- tion abroad. It was, therefore, very cool indeed of this pious Puritan rebel (whose name was the ninth signed to the death warrant of his lawful King) to call O’Neill a soldier of fortune, he himself not only being a rebel and a regicide, but pre-eminently a soldier of fortune also. IN IK ELAND. 387 mand of their city. O’Neill and his northern troops were there- fore admitted, and this Ormonde approved of, seeing that he could not get in himself. But all did not unite under O’Neill. He was, to be sure, the military governor ; but there was also the civil authority represented by the Mayor, whilst a strong religious influence was exercised by the bishops and priests who were then in the city. And as the reader may remember, these three parties were distinctly represented by the Commissioners who were sent on the first occasion to treat with Ireton. The latter had not, as far as we know, any real supporters or sympathizers within the walls, but as on all such occasions there were persons within them who were willing to shape their course according to their private interests. The Ormondites would, no doubt, be prepared to repeat in Limerick what Ormonde himself did with regard to Dublin, and make terms with Ireton rather than allow the old Irish Catholic party to come too much to the front. The bishops and priests, with their lives in their hands, stood firmly for the freedom of religion, although Carte most dishonestly accuses them of doing so through their love of power; but they proved their sincerity by suffering everything, even death itself, for the cause to which they were devoted, whilst Ormonde, his matchless hero, took right good care to keep out of harm’s way on all dangerous occasions. We know from the accounts which have come down to us, that Major Fennell (Ormonde calls him Colonel Fennell) betrayed the city to Ireton. But he was not a mere isolated traitor ; he had sympathisers and was able to win over several influential parties to his views. In fact the city was betrayed by a conspiracy, and not by the act of a single traitor. As far as the names of the conspirators can be ascertained they were for the most part Ormondites, the principal of them beino- his uncle Dr. Fennell, previously the Marquis’s physician and his creature and spy in the Supreme Council. What were the real views of Stritch the Mayor, it is not perhaps very easy to settle. There was a good deal of hesitancy about him, but at any rate there can be no doubt that he aided Fennell in opening the gates for Ireton.* Whether influenced by the disloyalty of some, or the dreadful mortality resulting from the plague, or by Ire ton’s overtures, * Borlase says, that Thomas Strick [or Stritch] the Mayor was of the party that wished to deliver up the city, and that he gave the Key of St. John’s Gate to Fennell, though he denied it to the party that opposed the yielding up of the place. History of the Rebellion of 1641, p. 358. This is corroborated by Dr. William Layle’s account of the transaction, who was eye-witness of what passed, and whose narrative shall be more particularly referred to hereafter. S88 THE BATTLE OF THE i’AITH backed by his “silver-plated bullets/’ or by all combined, a strong party arose within the walls, favourable to a treaty with the besiegers. “ By one come out of Limerick,” says the Diary already quoted, “we heard that (the 12th inst.) it was an assembly in the city debated to treate with us ; 2 parts of 3 were for a present treaty, but the rest being, although the fewer, yet the more leading, (countenanced by their factious clergie, and the souldiery) prevailed so as that for 14 daies from that time they should forbeare treating, in that time expecting relief.”* * * § On the 23rd of October {before the fortnight agreed ujpon luas €X]pired), a mixed council of military and civilians was held in the Courthouse of Limerick, at which two points were carried *. (1). “ That the treaty should go on,” and (2) “That they should not sticke [i,e. be hindered from proceeding with the treaty] for any persons exempted, or to be exempted from quarter of life or goods.”f This was evidently an ex ggarte meeting or cabal, the result of whose deliberations soon became known to the rest of the citizens ; and when the same parties assembled next morning to choose Commissioners for the treaty, “ The Lord Bishops of Limerick and Imly, and the clergy there resident, went into the Courthouse and declared unto them the excommunication to be incurred by them and every one of them, if they should deliver up the Prelates to be slaughtered.’’^ In spite of this warning they elected agents for the treaty, upon which a declaration of the excommunication upon their persons, and a perpetual interdict upon the city, was published and affixed to the church doors.”§ In consequence of this, on that very night. Colonel Fennell, William Burke, Fitzthibott and Lieut.- Colonel Teige McJohn [McShane ?], McTiege and McNamara, with their parties, seized St. John’s gate and Cluain’s tower, having overcome and dis- persed the guard that was regularly appointed to protect those places. Major-General O’Neill, behind whose back all this seems to have been done, appeared on the scene next morning, and questioned Fennell as to his action in the matter, asking * Diary of Parliamentary Forces ; Aphor. Disc., Vol. III., p. 252. t Dr. William Layle’s Narrative of the Surrender of Limerick, printed in App. of Aphor. Disc., Vol. III., p. 263 ; from the Clarendon Papers in the Bodleian Library. See also Clarendon’s Historical Review, p. 204. J Dr. Layle, loc. cit. § Ihid. “The chief authors of the plot were the new Mayor [Stritch], Piers Creagh FitzPiers, Piers Creagh FitzAndrewe, the Recorder [Stackpoole], Dr. Dominick White, James Burke, Nicholas Fanning, James White, Alderman, and many Burgesses, whereof Laurence Rice, Laurence White, David Creagh, Stephen White, Patrick Wolfe, and James Mahony were chiefest.” — lhid» IX IRELAND. 389 him what brought him there at all, seeing that he had been appointed to quite another duty, namely, to relieve the Island’s posts. His answer v/as that “ he had reason to be there,” that what he had done was by the command of the Mayor, “ and the best in the towne.” The Mayor was immediately sent for, "‘but never answered directly to any question,” alleging that there was no harm in the said parties being in that place. He was then interrogated as to whether he had given the keys of the gate to them, but “he answered negatively though untruly, as appeared after ; this being on Tuesday, the 24th.”* On Friday a Council of War sat, which summoned Fennell to come before them, in order to be tried, but he refused to appear, although summoned three or four times. For this contumacy the Council was about to proceed against him, “ when upp starts my Lord of Castle- Connell and tooke Fennell’s parte.” Upon this the Council was dissolved, and Castle- Connell went to Fennell, and had a long private conference with him ; after which Fennell, having got four firkins of powder from the Mayor, turned the muzzles of the artillery which was to play upon the enemy, upon the city, and declared he would not give up the position he held, until the city was yielded to Ireton. On Friday the besiegers planted a battery at the windmill, but so high that it was ineffective. On Saturday they removed their gabions into a lower place, that they might play sure;” and on Sunday morning about ten o’clock they fired nine great shots, “ broke their battery piece,”f and gave a second volley of eight shots, upon which a drummer was sent out to have a time appointed to send Commissioners to * Ibid. t Ibid. This phrase means, I suppose, that they made a breach in the wall where a battery belonging to the besieged stood. Lndlow says : — “ Our battery being now in order, and the regiments that were appointed to storm, disposed to their several posts, we began to fire ; directing all our shot to one particular part of the wall, wherein we made such a breach, that the enemy, not daring to run any farther hazard, beat a parley, and soon came to a resolution to surrender upon the articles we had offered before, delivering up the east-gate of the out-town, which was separated by a river, having a draw-bridge over it, from the other town. ” — Ludlow’s Memoirs, Vol. I., p. 372. Lenihan says The battery was erected against that part of the wall which had no earth lining within, no counter-scarp, no protection, and that weak defence had been also shown to Ireton by some hidden traitor .” — History of Limerick, p. 178. See also Ludlow, p. 370. Ireton writes : — “Finding some hopeful advantage for an attempt by way of battery, at a place we had little observed before . . . . we at last resolved to try that way, whether it would please God so to work upon their hearts within, as might induce a present surrender before extremity of winter, and so save your sickly army from the hazards and hardships of a winter’s siege.” — Ireton to Lenthal, 3rd Nov., 1651. Aphor. Disc., Vol. III., p. 265. 390 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH treat. The agents from the city went out in the evening with full powers to conclude a treaty, which was accordingly done. It bears the date of the 27th of October, 1651. The Articles of the Treaty were five in number. The 1st provided for the surrender of the city and the giving of hostages. By the 2nd, All persons (excepting those excepted) were to have quarter for their lives, liberty for their persons and goods, and freedom from pillage, &c. The 3rd Article provided that of&cers, soldiers, and other persons then in the city, were to have liberty to march away with clothes, bag and baggage, money and goods, to any place within the Dominion of Ireland, not being a garrison of the Parliament ; and to have three months’ time to remove their goods ; and that such as would choose to go to any gar- risons or parties of the enemy should be provided with a convoy or safe conduct during their march, at the rate of ten miles a day, and conveyances and provisions from the country, at the usual rates. According to the 4th Article, those who had property or other interests in the city, could get an extension of time for remaining there, by application to the Deputy-General, or the chief officer in command. By the 5th Article it was permitted to all such persons in the city as desired to live peaceably under protection, and submit to the Parliament of England (unless the persons excepted from the benefit of the Articles, and except all clergymen^ Priests, and Friars of any order) to live in such places within the Dominion as they desired, on obtaining licence and protection. Such were the principal provisions of the quarter granted by the Articles, with regard to which, however. Dr. Layle makes use of this short and pregnant sentence — “ but it was not per- formed,” (!) These words sufficiently indicate the slaughter and villainy that followed. — See Articles in Lenihans Limerick, and elseivhere. Ireton, as he had threatened, excepted a number of persons from the benefit of the Treaty. They were 22 in all, and are named in the 2nd article in the follov/ing order : — 1, Major- General Hugh 0’Heill,the Governor; 2, Major-General Purcell ; 3, Sir Jeffrey Galway; 4, Lieut.- Colon el Lacy ; 5, Captain George Waif ; 6, Captain Lieutenant Sexton; 7, the Bishop of Lime- rick; 8, the Bishop of Emly ; 9, John Quillin, a Dominican Friar; 10, David Roch, a Dominican Friar; 11, Captain Laurence Welsh, a Priest; 12, Francis Waif,* a Franciscan Friar; 13, Philip O’Dwyer, a Priest; 14, Alderman Dominick * His name was James, not Francis, but in Latin books his name is set down Fr. Jacobus Walferus. Fr. [Frater] is evidently mistaken for Francis, IN IKELAND. 391 Fanning ; 15, Alderman Thomas Stritch; 16, Alderman Jordan E-och ; 17, Edmund Koch, Burgess ; 18, David Kocheford, Bur- gess ; 19, Sir Kichard Everard ; 20, Doctor Higgins ; 21, Maurice Baggot of Baggotstown ; 22, and Jeffrey Barron.^ Three of these exempted persons, namely, the Mayor of the previous year [Fanning], the Bishop of Emly (Terence Albert O’Brien), and Major-General Purcell “ were presently hanged and their heads set up on the gates.”! General Purcell did not die like a soldier. He fell on his knees and begged his life, but his prayer was not granted. He was so overcome with fear that he had to be supported to the place of execution by two musketeers. Bruodin styles him “ a noble- hearted and most accomplished warrior but this high-flown eulogy was not verified by his career in Ireland. The battle of Rathmines was lost chiefly by his carelessness or incapacity — a battle which, if won, as it could have been, might have changed the whole current of the war in Ireland. His death did not redeem that disgraceful failure.^ Geoffrey Barron was a Waterford man and a member of the Supreme Council. His heroic and truly Christian behaviour contrasts strongly with Purcell’s pusillanimity. When ordered to the gallows, he asked for a short respite to enable him to go to his lodgings. This was granted. On arriving there he broke open his trunks in search of his gayest and richest attire. “ Findiag a new suit of white taffetie,” he clothed himself in it, and returned to the place of execution with the joyous coun- tenance of one about to celebrate his nuptials, and died as became a martyr.§ Father Woulfe, a Dominican friar, was active and enthusiastic in encouraging the citizens to continue their resistance to the Parliamentarians. He was a venerable old man who had filled the office of prior for several years. Having been brought into Court and condemned to death, he made a public profession of Catholic Faith, and exhorted the people to constancy in pre- serving the religion of their fathers. When he had reached the highest step of the ladder by which he ascended to the gallows, he turned to the spectators and said in a loud and firm voice: — “We have been made a spectacle to God, to angels, and to men : * Dr. Wm. Layle says there were twenty-four persons exempted from the articles. t Ireton to Lenthal, 3rd November, 1651. t Ludlow’s Memoirs, p. 373. § Aphor. Disc., Vol. III., p. 20. 892 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH to God (would that he may grant it) a spectacle of glory, to angels of joy, to men of contempt.” — (1 Cor. iv. 9.) He was then thrown forward and expired. The Bishop of Emly went with a joyful and dignified bearing to the place of execution, bowing as he proceeded, with a serene countenance to the Catholics, who wept bitterly as he passed. His last words to them were: — “Preserve the Faith, keep the commandments; do not murmur at the will of God and you will possess your souls ; do not weep for me, but pray that being firm and unbroken amidst this torment of death, I may happily finish my course.”* We find but meagre accounts of the Puritan soldiers on enter- ing Limerick. Dr. Layle tells us the terras of surrender were not kept, but he gives no details as to how they were broken. The Author of the Aphor. Disc, however writes as follows : — “ The enemie [were] running here and there, massaoringe andkillinge every mothers child they mett other than the exempted traitors, three days and soe many nights were they in this bloudie execu- tion, noe growte [grotto], setter, prison, church, or tombe, was unsearched, all therein found, made peece-mealls, and hanged and quartered.”t Father Woulfe and Jeffrey Barron were also executed without delay. The victors found an abundance of warlike stores in Limerick. Perhaps this is not to be wondered at with regard to weapons, which do not diminish by use, but the stock of ammunition was remarkable. Passing over other things, take the two items of powder and match ; we find 83 barrels of powder were delivered up and three tons and a half of match for the firelocks. Nor had provisions run low, although intelligence from within led the besiegers to think they had. “ But now we find,” writes the author of the Diary of the Forces, “ the stores in the city more than were reported, or more than the owners would before have acknowledged, and much more than would have consisted ivith the well-being {if with the being) of our army to sit by it at this season until these should have been consumed”l When Ireton himself was prepared to enter the city, Hugh O’Neill, as being governor, met him at the gate, where he pre- sented him with the keys of the city, and gave order for the marching out of the soldiers who were not townsmen, according * O’Heyne quoted in Hib. Dominicana, p. 449. t Apbor. Disc., loc. cit. supra, t Diary of Parliamentary Forces. App. Aphor. Disc., Vol. III., p. 263.’ The italics are the author’s. IN IRELAND. 393 to the articles. They were in number about two thousand five hundred men. As they were marching out two or three of them fell down dead of the plague. Several of them also lay un- buried in the church-yard. The Governor waited on the Deputy to show him the stores of arms, ammunition, and pro- visions, which were sufficient to have lasted near three months longer.* * * § Hugh O’Neill and Jeffrey Barron, as stated above, were condemned to die, but Ireton consented to hear any defence they had to make. O’Neill’s defence was (1) that the war had been long on foot before he came over ; (2) that he had come upon the invitation of his countrymen, and that he had always demeaned himself as a fair enemy ; (3) that the ground of his exception from the articles, that is, his encouraging the citizens to hold out, when there was no hope of relief, was not applicable to him, who had always moved them to a timely surrender ;f (4) and that he should therefore enjoy the benefit of the articles, relying on which he had faithfully delivered up the keys of the town, with all the arms, ammunition and provisions, without embezzlement, and his own person also to the Deputy.^ “ But the blood formerly shed at Clonmel, where this Colonel O’Neill was governor, had made such an impression on the Deputy, that his judgment, which was of great weight with the court, moved them a second time to vote him to die, tho’ some of us earnestly opposed it, for the reasons before mentioned by himself; and because whatsoever he had been guilty of before had no relation to these Articles, which did not at all exempt him from being called to an account by the Civil Magistrate for the same. The court having passed sentence of death a second time against him, the Deputy, who was now entirely freed from his former manner of adhering to his own opinion, which had been observed to be his greatest infirmity, observing some of the officers to be unsatisfied with this judgment, referred it again to the consideration of the Court, who by their third vote consented to save his life.”§ We would leave the story of the siege of Limerick by Ireton * Ludlow’s Memoirs, Vol. I., p. 372. t This part of the defence is cautiously worded. O’Neill would not, any more than other good generals, counsel a town to hold out, when there was no hope of relief : but this did not contradict the view that the time had not yet come to give up all hopes of relief when Fennell took possession of St. John’s Gate and held it for the enemy, admitting 200 red coats through it to help him to do so, and giving them possession of the St. John’s gate tower and Price’s mill. See Account of Surrender, by Dr. William Layle, loc. cit. f Ludlow, p. 374. § Ibid., p. 374. It is stated in the Aphor. Discovery, Vol. III., p. 20, that Ireton treated O’Neill from the first with great kindness, telling him he would 894 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH but imperfectly told, were we to pass over in silence the im- portant connection the Missionaries of St. Vincent de Paul had with it, three of whom were within the city during the whole time. Several fathers of the congregation of the Mission, or Vincentian fathers, as they are now commonly called, had been in Ireland some years before the siege of Limerick. Five years of war, from 1641 to the peace of 1646, caused religion to be greatly neglected in this country. Those able to bear arms were, one way or another, nearly all engaged in the conflict, and their pastors could give spiritual aid to their flocks only at the peril of their 'lives. The peace of ’46 gave high hopes of a cordial union between the Catholics and Ormonde, and Queen Henrietta, knowing the Irish Catholics were devoted to the King, her husband, and being aware that much spiritual destitution prevailed in this country, requested, according to some writers, the reigning Pontiff, Innocent X., to send some Missionary Priests to Ireland. The same petition was, no doubt, put forward from other quarters, and even before the peace cf ’46. The Holy Father selected the Congregation of the Mission for the important undertaking. Those fathers were well known to the Pope, for they had been carrying on missions in Pome itself, frorn the year 1642.* * They were at the moment engaged in preparing Spiritual succour for the slaves of Barbary, and Vincent, in obedience to the Holy Father’s request, selected for Ireland eight of those originally intended for Barbary, five of them being Irishmen. f r^eive no prejudice ; but I prefer to follow Ludlow, who was one of the officers who tried O’Neill, and who had no motive to misstate the facts. For some account of the career of Hugh O’Neill see Note B. * Letter of g, Vincentian Father in author’s possession. t Five were Irish according to the Abbe Maynard ; but from St. Vincent’s letter to the Bishop of Limerick, dated 15th October, 1646, it would appear there were six of the missionaries Irish. He writes : — “ My Lord, I have at last the happiness of sending to Ireland eight missionaries ; one of them French, the others Irish, and an English lay brother. The first named will take the direction, according to the advice of the late Mr. Skiddy, who, before his death, recommended this course And would to God, my Lord, that I were worthy to be one of the party. [St. Vincent was 70 years of age then]. God knows with what heart 1 would go, and with what affection I offer to him this little band, and to yourself, my Lord, my lasting obedience. I most humbly entreat your Lordship to accept it.” From St. Vincent’s words to the Bishop of Limerick above given, — “I have the happiness,” &c., it would appear the mission was thought of before the peace of 1646, and this view is strength- ened by what Maynard says when attributing the origin of the mission to Queen Henrietta. His words are, “ Qui (Henrietta) n’avait jamais cesse d’entretenir des rapports avec les Catholiques Irlandais, et qui voulait profiter, d’un traite secret passe dernierement entre eux et Charles ” This secret treaty wa^made with the Catholics by Glamorgan, and signed the 25th of August, Begarding the name Skiddie or Skiddy in the above extract, my valued cor- IN IRELAND. 895 On the eve of their departure Yincent assembled them, and addressed them in such touching and simple words as he knew so well how to select. He, in a special manner, exhorted them to be united, because the Spirit of their Divine Master was one of union and peace ; and on all occasions to prove themselves obedient children to the Sovereign Pontiff, who was Christ’s Yicar on earth. Having received the blessing of their holy founder, they took their departure from Paris about the middle of October, 1646, and proceeded to Nantes. After some unavoidable delay there, they continued their journey to Saint-Nazaire at the mouth of the Loire, where they took passage for Ireland. In due time they arrived at their destination, and divided themselves into two parties ; one for the Diocese of Cashel, and the other for that of Limerick, in each of which they immediately opened Missions, which produced the most abundant fruits. The great and holy work went on for some years not only in the towns, but in the villages and rural districts, the people often making long journeys to attend their Missions. And so great was the number of penitents that many had to wait for weeks before they could get an opportunity of confessing to the Missionaries.* * And this is borne out by a letter of St. Yincent de Paul himself. Writing on the 10th of May, 1647, to M. Martin, Priest of the Mission of Genoa, he says : — “ We have received news from our Missionaries in Ireland. They tell me that the war and the poverty that reigns around are great obstacles to their work; yet having lately given a Mission the crowds were so great that they (although five confessors) were not able to get through all the confessions, as numbers from the surrounding country thronged in at the sound of the Gospel truths. Some living ten leagues away remained four or five days to get to confession. I commend them to your prayers.”t “ The change of heart was so great and so rapid that the Irish bishops could hardly conceive it. The Nuncio [Pinuccini], whom the Pope had in that kingdom at the time, congratulated the Missionaries on their success. He exhorted • them to persevere with the good work, and invited the clergy of the country. Secular and Eegular, to follow in their instructions respondent is of opinion that it is either Sheedy or Sheehy. Sheedy, I should py, is the most probable, but I entertain a strong opinion that the name Skiddy itself exists in the south of Ireland. Father Skiddy was born in Cork in 1609, and entered the Congregation of the Mission 9th October, 1638. Letter cited above. * Mgr. Abelly, Eveque de Rodez : Vie de S. Vincent de Paul, Tome I., p. 410. t Kindly supplied by Vincentian Father already quoted. 39G THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH the method of the Missionaries, so easy in practice and so full of benediction in its results.”* The successes of the Parliamentary army made the giving of missions more and more difficult — at first in the rural districts, but by degrees in the towns also, which, one after another, were taken by the Parliamentarians; so that at last there was no place of importance or security left but Limerick. St. Vincent having been informed of this, called five of the eight Fathers back to France, leaving the other three in the city of Limerick to continue their labours. And indeed it had become a vast field of missionary work from the fact, that great numbers of the rural population rushed, terror-stricken, into the city. The Missionaries who returned to France were the bearers of letters to St. Vincent, from the Archbishop of Cashel and the Bishop of Limerick, testifying to the great success of the missions, and thanking St. Vincent for the valuable spiritual aid he had afforded their flocks. In his letter, the Bishop of Limerick says : — “ It is true, the troubles and the armies that are in this kingdom have been a great obstacle to their [the Missionaries’] functions. Yet in spite of this, they have so deeply imprinted what regards God and their salvation on the souls of the inhabi- tants, in the towns as well as in the country, that they bless God in adversity the same as in prosperity. I hope to save my soul with their assistance.”! The three priests who were carrying on the missions in Limerick, not only expressed their willingness, but their strong desire to continue their labours in the doomed and plague- stricken city, and their holy Superior gave them the necessary permission in a letter written from Paris in April, 1650, to the head of the mission at Limerick, in which he says. We have been greatly edified by your letter, seeing in it two excellent effects of the grace of God ; through one of them you have given yourself to God, to remain in a country where you • are surrounded with dangers, electing to expose yourself to death in order to help your neighbour ; and through the other you consult for the safety of your confreres, by trying to send them back to France, where they will be at a distance from peril. The spirit of martyrdom has urged you to the first, and pru- dence to the second ; both are derived from the example of our Blessed Lord, who being on the point of dying for the salvation of mankind, wished to protect and deliver His disciples : ‘ If * Vie de S. Vincent de Paul, par M. Collet, Tome 4 ^nie, p. 242. t Saint Vincent de Paul, saVie, son Temps, sesCEuvres, son Influence. Par M. L. Abbe Maynard, Chanoine honoraire de Poitiers. Tome p. 39 . X IRELAND. 397 therefore you seek Me, let these go their way/ (John xviii. 8). . . . . Since those other Missionaries who are with you are dis- posed, like you, to remain notwithstanding the dangers arising out of war and sickness, we think it well for them to do so. Who knows the designs of God ? Surely He does not give such a desire in vain.” Further on in this letter St. Vincent calls the Mission of his fathers in Ireland, the most fruitful, and per- haps the most necessary they had ever beheld.” There being no quarter for priests in the Articles of the Treaty of Surrender, the three Vincentian Fathers and a large number of other ecclesiastics then in the city, got out in disguise among the soldiers who were compelled to retire. St. Vincent himself gives an account of this in a letter to Father Lambert, Superior at Varsovia, bearing date 22nd March, 1652. He writes : — “ We thought our Irish confreres were amongst those whom the English put to death at the taking of Limerick, but thanks to God, He delivered them out of their hands. That is certain with regard to Father Barry, who has reached Nantes, and whom, we expect here. We have hopes of the safety of Father Brin, though we are not sure. They escaped together from Limerick along with one hundred, or one hundred and twenty priests and religious, all in disguise, and mingling with the soldiers of the city, who left the day the enemy entered. Our Missionaries spent the night preparing for death, because no quarter was to be given to ecclesiastics ; but God did not permit them to be recognised as such. Having got out, they separated from each other, not without great sorrow, one going this way and another that. Father Brin went towards his home along with the Vicar-General of Cashel, their good friend, and Father Barry made for the mountains, where he fell in with a charitable lady who received him, and kept him two months in her house, until he got his passage in a vessel bound for France. Since he parted with Father Brin he has not heard of him. He thinks it will be difficult for him to reach France, as the English are masters of the sea, and are, besides, in his country, so that he is in need of prayers. The poor cleric Lye having reached his home, fell into the hands of the enemy, who dashed out his brains and cut off his hands and feet in the presence of his mother.”* No part of the expense incurred in sending the Vincentian Fathers to this country and supporting them here, was borne by the Irish people. Something was given by the Duchess d’Aiguillon, partly to defray the expenses of the voyage, and * Copy of Letter in Author’s possession. According to Abelly Father Brin also arrived safely in France. Vie de S. Vincent de Paul, Vol. I., p. 417. 398 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH partly to purchase vestments, of which the Fathers were in much need. With the exception of this charitable offering, the parent House of St. Lazare, through the inexhaustible charity of St. Vincent, bore the whole charges of the Irish Mission ; but as his biographers remark, over 80,000 general confessions, and others without number, were an ample reward to the Saint for his generous outlay. At the time of the siege there were about 20,000 Catholics in the city of Limerick capable of partaking of Sacraments, and it seems beyond doubt that hardly one of those omitted to make a general confession.* This 20,000 represents the whole number of persons (young children excepted) in the city at the time of the Siege. To us moderns it may, at first sight, seem a small population for Limerick, but we must bear in mind that 20 years later, in 1672, Sir W. Petty estimated the population of Ireland at 1,100,000, and the truth is, a great number of those 20,000, probably one-half, were not belonging to the city at all, the peasantry of the surrounding country having fied into it for protection ; and probably the over-crowd- ing thus caused had something to do with the plague, which then manifested itself, and raged so violently, that according to some accounts about 8,000 persons died of it, among whom are to be numbered the Bishop of Limerick’s brother, and Ireton himself, f It is impossible to say at what precise time the idea of reach- ing the throne took possession of Cromwell, but it must have been pretty early in his career. If not before the battle of Worcester, it was certainly immediately after it. Oliver was a man who looked far a-head, and he soon began to show a desire to * “ II y avait pres de vingt mille communions dans Limerick, qui firent tons leur confession g^n4rale.” — Ahelly, Vie, Ac., Vol. I.,p. 412. I According to calculations made by Sir Wm. Petty the whole population of Ireland in 1672, (20 years after the end of the war) was only 1,100,000 . — ^Political Survey of Ireland, 2 Pd., p. 8. The Missionaries sent by St. Vincent to Ireland were ; — 1. Father Bourdet, Superior of the Mission. 2. Father Duchene. 3. Father Brin. This, no doubt, was Byrne or O’Byrne, Brin being the usual way of writing Byrne at the time. 4. Father Barry. 5. The Cleric Lye, who was martyred. There can be scarcely any doubt that he was the Thaddeus Leahy who was born at Tuam in 1623, received into the Congregation in Paris,21st October, 1643, and had made his vows 7th of October, 1645. There were two lay brothers belonging to the Mission : — Brother Soloman, Peter Patriarch (Peter Patriarch w^ere names taken in Con- firmation). Brother Vaugin, who joined the Missionaries from Mans. IN IRELAND. 399 stand well with Cavaliers and Roundheads alike, a fact which the latter observed with considerable disfavour. When Ormonde was supposed to wish to leave Ireland on his being refused admission into Limerick, Cromwell offered him a pass through Dean Boyle, to whom he said many kind things about the Marquis and his friends, more especially about the Marchioness. It would be a mistake to imagine that this affair was intended as an insult to Ormonde : no, it was the result of Cromwell’s desire to stand well with a man of such position and influence. On the eve of his sailing from Galway, Ireton made Ormonde the same offer. Oliver would be King of the Nation and not of a section of it. Clanrickarde had scarcely assumed the Government when Grace and Bryan, two Catholic officers, presented themselves to the Assembly of prelates, with a letter from Axtel, the Puritan Governor of Kilkenny, containing a proposal for a treaty. By many it was hailed with transports of joy, as the conditions held out were better than they had reason to expect then^ and infinitely better than they could expect afterwards. There was much truth and force in this reasoning ; and it was strengthened by the testi- mony of officers from several quarters, who represented that, to negociate with the Parliament was the only expedient for the preservation of the people. But Clanrickarde treated the pro- posal with contempt, regarding it as an insult to himself, and an act of treason against the King. He was seconded by Castlehaven, who affected to despise the enemy’s power, and attributed their success to the divisions amongst the royalists. The real traitors in the case were Clanrickarde and Castlehaven ! for they had been secretly instructed by Charles to continue the contest at every risk, as the best means of enabling him to make head against Cromwell. So that the lives and properties of the Catholics of Ireland were to be sacrificed to the mere chance of gaining a victory for the Scots, the bitter and implacable enemies,^ who had insisted on the abolition of their religion throughout the realm. Some time in the summer before Ormonde left Ireland, he sent Lord Taaffe to Brussels to solicit material aid from the Duke of Lorraine, to sustain the King’s interests in Ireland. Lorraine was related to Charles, and moreover, like some modern German dukes, had no objection to venture, for a consideration. Taaffe was alarmed at the duke’s demands, and proceeded to Paris to get * Lingard’s England, Vol. VIII., pp. 169-70. Castlehaven’s Memoirs, pp. 130 I. Castlehaven exults over the fact that he and Clanrickarde caused Grace and Bryan to retire discomfited. 400 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH the opinion of the Queen Mother and the Duke of York upon them. They urged him to come to terms with Lorraine, as they believed the royal cause must collapse in Ireland if left unsustained by foreign aid ; and although the duke’s demands were somewhat exorbitant, they could not, they thought, be so injurious to the King as the total ruin of his affairs in this country. Still Taaffe feared the responsibility of closing with the duke, and induced him to send Dr. Henin to Ireland as his envoy, with power to conclude a treaty. When Dr. Henin arrived he was received with joy by the people, the clergy, and the nobility. He brought some arms and ammunition, and gave a promise of further sup- port. The Duke, being a Catholic Prince, said he would sustain the cause of religion, as well as that of the King. The Catholics were between two fires, Cromwellians on one side, Scotch Covenanters on the other. “ The curse of Cromwell,” which had so lately fallen on the land, was terrible enough, but should the Kirk triumph, they believed their state would be still more dread- ful, as those who had taken the Covenant were bound to extermi- nate Catholics wherever they had the power to do so. And the unfortunate and unprincipled Charles himself, having taken the said Covenant, had solemnly engaged to break all treaties with his Irish Catholic subjects, and to destroy them as bloody rebels,” although their blood had been shed in the cause of himself and his father. The Confederate Catholics therefore hailed as a godsend the offer of a powerful and wealthy Prince to stand between them and the destruction which threatened them from both sides. But Clanrickarde like Taaffe took alarm at the conditions pro- posed by Dr. Henin on the part of Lorraine. “ That Prince, by the treaty, engaged to furnish for the protection of Ireland, all such supplies of arms, money, ammunition, shipping, and pro- visions, as the necessity of the case might require ; and in return, the agents, in the name of the people and kingdom of Ireland, were to confer on him, his heirs and successors, the title of Protector Royal, together with the chief civil authority, and the command of the forces, but under the obligation of restoring both, on the payment of his expenses to Charles Stuart, the rightful Sovereign.”* After the King’s defeat at Worcester, when he had arrived at Paris, he sent the Earl of Norwich to the Duke of Lorraine, to object to the articles of the treaty which bore most on the royal authority. He proposed that the old treaty should be set aside, and that a new one should be prepared, with those articles left out or * Clanrickarde, p, 34. IN IKELAND. 401 greatly modified. But the crushing defeat of the Scots caused Lorraine to regard the whole project as hopeless ; and so it was carried no further. But he was never refunded the £20,000 he had advanced to Clanrickarde. Of the whole affair Lingard says : — “ There cannot be a doubt that each party sought to over- reach the other.”* On the 12th of May, 1652, Galway surrendered to Sir Charles Coote, before any storm or assault had been attempted, and with- out consultation with the Lord Deputy, who was within half-a- day’s journey of the town. The smaller places that had been holding out in Connaught, quickly followed the example of Galway and made the best terms they could with the Parliamen- tarians, and so a war of ten years’ duration was ended. * History of Eagland, Vol. VIII., pp. 170-1-2. See Articles between TaafFe and the Duke of Lorraine in Cox, Vol. lI-> p. 59. 402 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH CHAPTER XX. THE CROMWELLIAN TRANSPLANTATION. Although the war of 1641 had practically come to a close in May, 1652, as stated in the last Chapter, the Parliament did not declare “ the rebellion subdued” and “ the war appeased and ended” until the 27th of September, 1653.* And then what a retrospect presented itself! The country had become a blood- stained wilderness, for this war was, like all other English wars in Ireland, a war of extermination to clear the ground for a new England: Every plan that could be devised by hard heads and harder hearts was resorted to for this purpose. The sword, which is the natural weapon of war, was never sheathed ; but famine more dreadful than the sword, and so eloquently recommended by the poet, Edmund Spenser, as more effective, was also called into requisition. Prevent husbandry, destroy the cattle and the grow- ing crops, “we can have our supplies from England,” — such was the motto and such the cry. The remedy was very effective. “ To place garrisons near their fastnesses, to lay waste the adjacent country, allowing none to inhabit there on pain of death, was the course taken to subdue the Irish.-j* The consequence was, that the country was reduced to a howling wilderness. In his circuitous march from Waterford to the Siege of Limerick, in November, 1650 — a distance, he says, of 150 miles — Ireton passed through districts of 30 miles together, with hardly a house or any living creature to be seen, only ruins and desolation in a plain and pleasant land.”J The war having been declared at an end, the time had arrived for the Parliament to meet the demands of such as had claims on them. The claimants were of two classes, those who had lent money to carry on the war, and the soldiers who had fought in it. There was but one way by which these claims could be met, which was the confiscation of the entire soil of Ireland, 2,500,000 * Scobell’s Acts and Ordinances quoted in the “ Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland.” By John P. Prendergast, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. This invaluable work will be the chief authority for the facts given in the present chapter. t “Some particulars humbly offered,” &c., quoted in Cromw. Settlement, p. 79. X Mercur. Polit., p. 313, quoted ibid. IN IRELAND. 403 acres of which had been already mortgaged to the Adventurers for the monies they had advanced. The conduct of the Parlia- ment towards the King had, for a considerable time, been that of “ veiled rebellion they continued to make professions of loyalty with suspicious exuberance, whilst they were stripping him, one by one, of his prerogatives and powers. To put down the Irish rebellion, Irish lands had been offered to such as were willing to lend money on their security. Those who did so were called subscribers, or Adventurers. Many of them entered into the project with much zeal; for besides the substantial advan- tage of securing rich land at a low price, they felt they would have eternal rewards from God for the aid they gave towards the uprooting of popery. Many in England began to petition for leave to become subscribers, and the Parliament passed an Act by which, as stated above, 2,500,000 acres of Irish land were offered as security for the money advanced. This money was not paid into the King’s exchequer, but was placed in the hands of a committee, one-half of whom were members of the House of Commons, the other half subscribers or Adventurers. A private array was raised for subduing the rebels in Ireland, and the joint committee assumed the right of appointing the general and all the other officers, leaving to the King the empty privilege of signing their commissions. His Majesty objected to this Act, because it placed him in direct antagonism to his Irish subjects, but he was afraid to refuse his assent to it. The terms on which the Adventurers subscribed their money for the war, were the following : — “ They were to have estates and manors of 1,000 acres given to them in Ireland, at the follow- ing low rates : — In Ulster for £200, in Connaught for £300, in Munster for £450, and in Leinster for £600, and smaller lots for proportionably less sums. The rates by the acre were four shillings in Ulster, six shillings in Connaught, eight shillings in Munster, and twelve shillings in Leinster. If this plan were carried out, it was to put an end for ever, according to Sir John Bulstrode Whitelock, the Speaker of the House of Commons, to that long and bloody conflict foretold (with so much truth) by Giraldus Cambrensis.* The work of Queen Elizabeth and James the First, it was said, would now be perfected. The Irish would be rooted out by a new and over- whelming plantation of English ; another England would speedily * Speech at a Conference between the Lords and Commons on 1.3th February, 1641-2, concerning the Proposition of divers gentlemen, &c. See “ Cromwellian Settlement,” p. 73. 2nd Ed. To save repetitions, I beg to state that this edition is the one quoted in every instance in the present work. 404 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH be formed in Ireland, and that prophecy, as old as the invasion,^ be proved false, and that Ireland will not be conquered till just before the day of Judgment/’f The author of the ‘‘ Cromwellian Settlement” prints a full list of the Adventurers, with the sums subscribed by them. The number of those who contributed to raise and support land forces for the Irish war was 1,158, the total amount of their subscriptions being £249,305, 19s. 8d. — in round numbers a quarter of a million — a sum not much short of one million sterling, according to the present value of money. The subscriptions for the sea forces were comparatively small, amount- ing only to £43,406, 5s. advanced by 172 subscribers.^ In the summer of 1642 the Adventurers had a private army of 5,000 foot and 500 horse under the command of Lord Wharton at Bristol, ready to invade Munster ; but the civil war having broken out, the Parliament, which alw^ays pretended their only object w^as to free the King from evil councillors, ordered Lord Wharton to lead this army against him. In a message to the Commons his Majest}^ represented that no part of the Adven- turers’ money could be so used, because “ by the express words of the Act of Parliament, it was declared that no 'part of that money should he employed to any other jpurjposef but the reduction of Ireland, and he therefore called on them to retract their order for applying it to other uses, “ The Commissioners in answer declare, that these directions given by his Majesty for retracting their order was a high breach of the privileges of Parliament' Lord Wharton therefore by the orders of Parliament marched against the King, but his forces, together with the other English rebels, were defeated at Edgehill on the 23rd of October, 1 642. “ The Adventurers finding that the funds they had raised to conquer lands in Ireland were thus misused by the Paliament, it was difficult to obtain further subscriptions, though the mea- sure of land was enlarged to the Irish standard, and afterwards doubled for any Adventurer that would pay in a sum equal to a fourth of his original subscription.”!] During the w^hole course of the war the Adventurers were very pressing to have assigned to them the promised lands in Ireland. * Giraldus Cambrensis, chap. B., 233, quoted in “ Cromwellian Settlement,” p. 73. + Fidelity, Valour, and Obedience, &c., &c. By Walter Meredith, Gent., quoted Ibid., p. 74. ^ Cromwellian Settlement. Appendix, p. 403. This list of Adventurers is preserved in the Record Tower, Dublin Castle, and may be, the author of the “Cromwellian Settlement” thinks, the only complete one in existence. § Rush worth’s Collections Abridged and Improved, Vol. IV., p. 498. 11 Cromwellian Settlement, p. 74. IN IRELAND. 405 At length in May, 1652, the Committee of Parliament offered to move the House to comply with their request, and to allot them lands in Leinster and Munster, if they would fully undertake to plant their proportions within three years from the 29th of Sep- tember following, ^vith protestants of any nation {save Irish). Although the Adventurers were very anxious to get hold of the lands, they objected to a speedy plantation, because the war was not yet over. The tories were active and dangerous, and no plan for the security or protection of the planters had been laid down ; so they refused to be put under conditions to plant within any limited time. Labourers, they further urged, were scarce in England. A great number would be required for the planting, they had not houses to lodge them io, they dared not build in that land of desolation, till the tories should he destroyed!* It was ultimately arranged that the planting by the Adventurers and the Army should go on simultaneously, each having their distinct lands allotted to them. The setting out of their lands to the Adventurers and soldiers presented many difficulties, one of which met the Commissioners on the very threshold of the business. It was the existence still in the country of those thousands of trained Irish soldiers, who had laid down their arms under articles, which are known in the histories of the period, as the ‘‘ Kilkenny Articles.” Those soldiers no longer existed as an army, but they existed in the bogs and fastnesses, in bands more or less numerous, and from these natural strongholds it was found impossible to dislodge them. The starving out of the Irish from such places by building castles near them occupied by garrisons was an old piece of English strategy ; but such a process, even if successful, would be slow, and ineffective in the present case, because the protection of the planters was of immediate and present necessity. In January, 1652, according to the Report of the Commissioners, the Par- liament had an army of 30,000 men in Ireland, but they had 350 garrisons and military posts to maintain, and there were 100 more to be built. The disbanded Irish soldiers numbered as many as the army of the Parliament, the greater number being distributed over the country, living, as I have said, in the bogs and fastnesses, and holding their own as well as they could. There could be no security for the planters, while these unreach- able, impalpable, but very real and dangerously active bands were in existence. They must, therefore, be disposed of somehow, before the English Adventurers and Cromwell’s Carte Papers, Vol. Ixx., p. 235. Cromwellian Settlement, p. 83. 406 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH soldiers could enjoy in peace the confiscated soil of Ireland. Hence we have in the Cromwellian Settlement the striking announcement in Capitals — -DEPAETURE OF THE SWORDSMEN FOR SPAIN;” Swordsmen meaning, in the case, all trained soldiers. By the Kilkenny Articles the Irish were to he allowed to engage in the service of any state in amity with the Commonwealth. Foreign rations were not ignorant of Irish valour. From the time of the Munster Plantation under Elizabeth, numerous Irish exiles took military service in foreign countries, especially in Spain. Wherever those Irish soldiers fought they made for their countrymen a reputation for valour and endurance, which caused foreign princes to receive them with welcome whenever they stood in need of their services ; and agents from the King of Spain, and King of Poland, and the Prince de Conde, were now contending for the services of Irish troops. Many of the chief Irish officers known to fame in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries made their repu- tation in foreign service. The great Owen Roe O’Neill himself, having left Ireland at the age of ten years, received all his mili- tary education fighting under the Spanish flag, chiefly in the Low Countries, then regarded as the military school of Europe.'^ Between 1651 and 1654 thirty-four thousand (of whom few ever saw their native land again) were transported into foreign parts.f The next announcement we find “displayed,” (as the printers say,) by large capitals in the “ Cromwellian Settlement ” is the following : — “ There lives not a people more hardy, active, and painful neither is there any will endure the miseries of warre, as famine, watching, heat, cold, wet, travel, and the like, so naturally, and with such facility and courage as they [the Irish] do. The Prince of Orange’s Excellency uses often publicly to deliver that the Irish are souldiers the first day of their birth. The famous Henry IV., the King of France, said there would prove no nation so resolute martial men as they, would they be ruly, and not too headstrong. And Sir John Norris was wont to ascribe this particular to that nation above others, that he never beheld so few of any country as of Irish that were idiots and cowards, which is very notable.”— p. 219, “Advertisement for Ireland.” MS. folio (a.d. 1615.) Library of Trin. Coll., Dublin, E. 3, 16. “ Henry IV. of France publicly called Hugh O’Neill the third soldier of the age, meaning himself to be the first, and the illustrious C. de Fuentes the second ; as testified to this day by the Most Noble the Count D’Ossunia, late Viceroy of Naples and Sicily, and in whose presence he said so.” — Lynch’s" Alithinilogia,” Vol. II., p. 50. Quoted in " Cromwellian Settlement,” p. 87. t Sir William Petty’s “Political Anatomy” makes the number 40,000 up to IN IRELAND. 407 THE SEIZURE OF WIDOWS, GIRLS, AND ORPHANS, TO SEND TO THE BARBADOES. The Swordsmen were dangerous to the planters. Widows, orphans, and “ those who had no visible means of livelihood ” were an incumbrance ; so that whilst the gentry of Ireland were being transported to Connaught, and the swordsmen shipped for Spain, ‘‘ Agents were actively employed through Ireland seiz- ing women, orphans, and the destitute, to be transported to Barbadoes, and the English colonies in America.” For this inhuman wickedness the Government took great credit to them- selves, because they relieved the planters of a population that was useless and might be troublesome ; and the benefit to those who were transported and enslaved was also very great, for they were consigned to the tender mercy of West India sugar planters, where they might be made English and Christians, and where the enforced labour of those able to work would be serviceable to their taskmasters !* The forty thousand swordsmen who went to Spain, and the soldiers who died fighting for their religion and country in the war, left a great number of widows and orphans behind them, and it became a business with the merchants of Bristol (then the great English port) to send agents through the country to treat with the government for men, women, and young girls to be sent to the sugar plantations of the West Indies. The Commissioners for Ireland having arranged terms with those agents^ ‘‘gave them orders on the governors of garrisons to deliver to them prisoners of war ; upon the keepers of jails, for offenders in custody; upon masters of workhouses for the destitute in their care .... and gave directions to all in authority to seize those who had no visible means of livelihood, and deliver them to those agents of the Bristol sugar merchants ; in execution of which latter direction Ireland must have exhibited scenes in every part like the slave hunts in America” They are unrecorded, but may be well imagined. One case has come down to us in Morison’s “ Threnodia.” It is as follows : — “ Daniel Connery, a gentleman of Clare, was sentenced, in Morison’s presence, to banishment, in 1657, by Colonel Henry Ingoldsby, for harbouring a priest. This gentleman had a wife and twelve children. His wife fell sick, and died in poverty. Three of his daughters, beautiful girls, were transported to the West Indies, to an Island called the Barbadoes; and there, if still alive, (he says) they are miser- * “ Cromwellian Settlement,” p. 89, et seq. Letter of Henry Cromwell, 4th Thurloe’s State Papers. 408 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH able slaves.”* “ But at last the evil became too shocking and notorious, particularly when these dealers in Irish flesh began to seize the daughters and children of the English themselves, and to force them on board their slave ships ; then, indeed, the orders, at the end of four years, were revoked.f On the 26th of September, 1653, the Parliament passed an Act for the new planting of Ireland. English Episcopalian- ism, and the offices connected with it, were abolished. The Government reserved for themselves the Church lands and tithes, together with all towns. They also reserved for themselves the four counties of Dublin, Kildare, Carlow, and Cork. This very large reservation was declared necessary to pay public debts, and to reward eminent friends of the republican cause in Parlia- ment; it was required also to enrich private favourites, active English rebels, regicides, and other such patriots. At the time the Act was passed the amount due to the Adventurers was £360,000. This sum the Government divided into three lots : £110,000 was to be satisfied in Munster; £205,000 in Leinster, and £45,000 in IJlster. Ten counties were charged with their payment : — Waterford, Limerick, and Tipperary, in Munster; Meath, Westmeath, King’s and Queen’s Counties, in Leinster ; and Antrim, Down, and Armagh, in Ulster. Then came the division by lots, according to the Act. The Lottery was held in Grocers’ Hall, London. There were three drawings. The first determined in which province the Adventurer’s claim was to be satisfied. The second determined in which county the Adventurer was to receive his land ; and as it had been considered an encouragement, and, in fact, a neces- sary protection to the Adventurers, to have soldier planters near them, arrangements were made for this purpose. The counties above named were divided into baronies, when a third drawing was made at the same time for Adventurers and soldiers, some officer being appointed to represent the latter ; and the matter was so managed that baronies were not to be divided. One barony was to consist exclusively of Adventurers, another exclusively of soldier-planters. All the soldiers, however, were not planted in this way ; so “ the rest of Ireland, except Connaught, was to be set out amongst the officers and remaining soldiers, for their arrears, amounting to £1,550,000, and to satisfy debts of money or provisions due for supplies advanced to the army of the Commonwealth, amounting to £1,750,000. Connaught was, by the Parliament, reserved and appointed for the habitation of the * Morison’s Threnodia Hiberno-Catholica. Innsbruck, 1659, p. 287. Quoted in Cromwellian Settlement, p. 90. t Ibid. IN IRELAND. 409 Irish nation ; and all English Protestants having lands there, who should desire to remove out of Connaught into the provinces inhabited by the English, were to receive estates in the English parts of equal value in exchange.’’* By the Act of the 2()th of September, 1653, “all the ancient estates and farms of the people of Ireland were declared to belong to the Adventurers and the army of England ; and it was announced that the Parliament had assigned Connaught (America was not then accessible), for the habitation of the Irish nation, whither they must transplant with their wives, and daughters, and children, before the 1st of May following (1654), under penalty of death, if found on this side of the Shannon after that day.” Many of the nobility, gentry, and leading proprietors, influenced by caution and prudence, refrained from taking any active part in the war, yet it was they who were specially com- pelled to transplant, not because they could be accused of having taken part in the so-called Massacre of 1641, but because their properties were required for the new English planters. Ploughmen, labourers, and such others as were useful for husbandry, were excepted from transplantation, although they would be far more likely than the wealthy classes to be concerned in the massacre, had there been one. Three reasons are given for this arrangement: “There is,” says the author of the “ Cromwellian Settlement,” “ an anecdote told by an English monk of the Order of the Friars Minors, who must have dwelt disguised, probably (a not uncommon incident), as a soldier or servant, in the household of Colonel Ingoldsby, Grover- nor of Limerick, that explains the reason why the common people were to be allowed to stay, and the gentry required to transplant. He heard the question asked of a great Protestant statesman (‘ magnus bpreticus Consiliarius,’) who gave three reasons for it : — First, he said they are useful to the English as earth tillers and herdsmen ; secondly, deprived of their priests and gentry^ and living among the English, it is hoped they will become Protestants ; and thirdly, the gentry without their aid must work for themselves and their families ; and so, in time, turn into common peasants, or die if they don’t.”t We have unimpeachable testimony that punishment for the blood, falsely said to have been shed in 1641, was not the object of the transplantation, and in fact, could not be, because it would * Scobell’s Acts and Ordinances for the year 1653, Chap. 12. “ Cromwellian Settlement,” p. 94, et seq. t Threnodia Hiberno-Catholica, p. 25. Quoted in “ Cromwellian Settlement,” p. 98. 410 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH be inadequate punishment for such a capital crime. “ Gookin having remarked upon the anomaly of transplanting those who could not be conceived guilty of murders, and allowing the class most capable of them to stay, Colonel Lawrence in answer appeals to the Act and Orders for transplantation, and asks, ‘ Is there in all this one word tending to ground transplantation on the principles of punishment or avenging of blood ?’ Its end, he saidj was to settle Ireland for the future “ The Parliament in 1652 confiscated the whole of Ireland ; but they allotted Connaught to the Irish, in order that the new English might plant and inhabit the three other provinces in security. All the Irish (according to the original scheme of the Parliament), except those who had adopted the religion of the English nation, were to transplant thither, on the presumption that they did not love the English. Such of them only were to be permitted to return back to their former homes and lands as could prove a Constant Good Affeetion to the enemy of their religion, name and nation, during the ten years’ war just ended.”t And a decree to this effect must be obtained from a court of English judges, then sitting in Athlone, to inquire into, critically investigate, and decide upon the evidence put forward by the Irish in proof of this Constant Good Affection. “ I appeal to those who knew the condition of Ireland in those times,” says Yincent Gookin, whether these instructions adhered to would not transplant every man ? How was it possible to escape com- pliance when the English were hemmed into their very gates, and the whole country a wild road for the rebels.’’^ The two principal reasons for selecting Connaught for the habitation of the Irish nation were: (1.) it was the most barren and the most wasted of the four provinces, the younger Coote having swept over it like a tornado, making it a land of desola- tion ; and (2.) it was to be their prison as well as their residence, an object not concealed, but very distinctly put forward. Whoever will take the trouble to glance over the map of the province will see that it is surrounded by the sea and the Shannon, except some ten miles at Jamestown, easily defended by a few forts; and in fact, the Order of the 9th of March, 1654-5, commands that “ the passes between Jamestown and Sligo be closed, so as to make one entire line between Connaught and the adjacent ♦Lawrence’s “Interest of England in the Transplantation Stated,” p. 11, [printed a.d. 1656]. t “Cromwellian Settlement,” p. 99, et seq. X Quoted, Cromwellian Settlement, p. 100. IN IRELAND. 411 parts of Leinster and Ulster.”* “ And further, to secure the imprisonment of the nation, and to cut them off from relief by sea, a belt four miles wide, commencing one mile to the west of Sligo, and so winging along the coast and Shannon, was reserved by the Act of 27th September, 1653, from being set out to the Irish, and was to be given to the soldiery to plant.” Thus, they were within a military cordon. “ Thither all the Irish were to remove at latest by the first day of May, 1654, except Irish women married to English Protestants before the 2nd Decern- her, 1650, provided they became Protestants ; except also boys under fourteen and girls under twelve, in Protestant service, and to he brought up Protestants ; and lastly, those who had shown during the ten years’ war in Ireland their Constant Good Affec- tion to the Parliament of England in preference to the King, There they were to dwell without entering a walled town, or coming within five miles of the same, on pain of death. All were to remove thither by the 1st of May, 1654, at latest, under pain of being put to death by sentence of a court of military officers, if found, after that date, on the English side of the Shannon.”! In spite of the power and anxious desire which existed to put the Irish nation under lock and key in Connaught,! great difficulties presented themselves in carrying out the project. Orders were issued dated the 15th of October, 1653, by which fathers and heads of families were to proceed before the 30th January, 1654, to Loughrea, to Commissioners appointed to set them out lands according to the stock possessed by them, and the friends who were to transplant with them. They were there to build huts before the arrival of their wives and families, who were to follow before the 1st of May. “ The whole nation, panic struck at having to travel during the winter to Connaught, and to abandon the lands they were still in occupation of, were deprived of all motive to go on with their tillage. The country must next year be a waste, for the soldiers could not be put in * Ibid. It was by those passes Coote entered Connaught in June, 1651. The Shannon divides Leitrim into two parts, one of which is the Connaught side of the river, but this was of little or no importance. t “The further Instruction confirmed by this xVct.” Ibid, p. 102. ! The phrase “ lock and key ” is no figure of speech i “How strict was the imprisonment of the transplanted in Connaught may be judged, when it required a special order for Lord Trimbleston, Sir Richard Barnewall, Mr. Patrick Netterville, and others, then dwelling in the suburbs of Athlone, on the Connaught side, to pass and repass the bridge into the part of the town on the Leinster side, on their business, and only on giving security not to pass without the line of the town, without special leave of the governor.” Cromwellian Settlement, p. 110. A p. 346. 412 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH possession in time to sow.”* Then if numbers of the people refused to obey the order, risking any penalty, even death itself, to transplantation, what was to be done ? The Commissioners for Ireland were overwhelmed with a sense of those difficulties, and of their own unworthiness for so great a service ; but being spiritual men, they knew where to seek strength and consolation ; so they turned to the God of all mercy and charity to vouchsafe them His assistance. “ They fasted and enjoined the same thing on all Christian friends in Ireland, and invited the commanders and officers of the army to join them in lifting up prayers with strong crying and tears to Him, to whom nothing is too hard, that His servants, whom he had called forth in this day to act in these great transactions, might be made faithful, and carried on by His own outstretched arm against all opposition and difficulty, to do what was pleasing in His sight. ”t Whether the officers and commanders joined in the fasting and praying or not, they were certainly loud and urgent in demanding their share of the lands of the disinherited Irish. “ But the cruellest act of those rough soldiers was that they and the State tenants entered, and proceeded, without mercy, to turn out the wives and children of these transplanted proprietors and their servants, engaged in watching their last crop, without giving them even a cabin to shelter in, or allowing them grass for their cows on lands so lately their own.”J The Commissioners were literally overwhelmed with applica- tions from persons anxious to be excused from transplantation. The reasons given were various, and in several instances curious. Old age and infirmity were a common excuse, as it was next to impossible for the old and infirm to travel on foot into Connaught in mid-winter, and cruel treatment it was to ask them. On a memorable occasion a Sacred Personage said to His people : — “ Pray that your flight be not in winter, or on the Sabbath,” but the flight of the poor transplanted Irish was in the winter, and, no doubt, on many a Sabbath also. Some service, or supposed service rendered to the army of the Parliament was frequently urged ; and a change from Popery to Protestantism was, of course, always deemed a very solid plea for exemption. I select a few cases : “ Margaret Barnewall had long been troubled with a shaking palsy.” “ Mr. Bobinson was aged about * Cromwellian Settlement, p. 102. t “ Letter dated 9th November, 1653, from the Commissioners for Ireland to the Commanders of the respective precincts to be communicated to the rest of our Christian friends there.” p. 555. Cromwellian Settlement, p. 103. X Cromwellian Settlement, p. 109. See also letter quoted at foot. IN IRELAND. 413 ninety, and blind, and never in arms (as was alledged), and had eighteen plough lands set out to the soldiery.” “ Piers Creagh, of Limerick, was hated by his countrymen for his former known inclination to the English Government.” “ Philip Ro O’Hugh [O’Neill] had given intelligence of Sir Phelim O’Neill, whereby he was apprehended and brought to justice.” “ Mary Thorpe, a Protestant, the wife of Dillon, an Irish Papist, and transportable for her husband’s recusancy, being a person fearing God, and affecting his worship in his ordinances, that she might have better conveniency for hearing the Gospel preached,” sought exemption. “ James Bower, of Waterford, because the Lord hath been pleased to enlighten his heart to the true way of salvation, the Protestant religion, and therefore desirous to live among the English where he might have the real exercise of his religion,” made a like request."^ But it was next to impossible to get a dispensation from being transplanted. “ William Spenser, the grandson of Edmund Spenser, the author of the ‘Faery Queen,’ was transplanted as an ‘ Irish Papist.’ His grandfather (as Cromwell wrote to the Commissioners for the Affairs of Ireland) was that Spenser who, by his writings, touching the reduction of the Irish to civility, brought upon him the odium of that nation William Spenser appealed to Cromwell ; and Cromwell, out of regard for the works of Edmund Spenser, endeavoured, but in vain, to save his lands for him.”t Spenser even pleaded that since he had arrived at the years of discretion he had utterly renounced Popery. And then the legal queries sent to the Commissioners for Ireland by the Loughrea Commissioners were many and perplexing. For instance : — “ Whether persons enlisted by their landlords, being officers, though they were never in the field nor marched out of the country were transplantable ?” “ Whether Papists that first served in the rebel army, but then took service under the Commonwealth, if still on muster, were transplant- able ?” “ Whether the wives and children of those gone to Spain were transplantable ?” “ What do the Commissioners for Ireland mean by Irish widows of English extract ?” “ Whether men marrying transplantable widows become themselves transplant- able _ * Cromwellian Settlement, p. 110, et seq., where many more such applica- ions may be seen. t Ibid., p. 116. See Cromwell’s letter in a footnote. ^ X In due time answers were returned to the above queries and others of the like sort. The wives and children of the swordsmen gone to Spain, and the orphans of transplantable persons, and men marrying transplantable persons, became themselves transplantable. But all such “ Swordsmen and Proprietors ” 414 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Such a multiplicity of petitions were sent in for extension of time, that on the 17th of May, 1654, the Council appointed two sets of Commissioners to hear applications and to grant dispen- sations. Their instructions were : — “ To dispense those whose lives would be endangered — the sick, the aged, the lame, and impotent ; those that aided the English armies, that had dis- covered rebels, that had sheltered English and Protestants from being murdered, and those that should give evidence of renounc- ing the Popish superstition, and the Bishop of Borne, and should also manifest their desire to hear such as should instruct them in the true and saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and his Grospel and Truths.”* * The wholesale eviction of the Irish Nation under circumstances of heartless barbarity must wound the heart of any one who reads through the sickening narrative, but after the toilsome task, the reader feeling that, at last, he can breathe a little freely, will be inclined to ask, will a settlement on the miserable barren lands, doled out to them in Connaught, put a term to the danger and sorrows to which they were so long exposed, even if still the victims of poverty and suffering? IJnfortunatel}^ an affirmative reply cannot be assumed as to the state of the disinherited Papists in Connaught. For, writes the author of the Cromwellian Settlement, The transplanter’s trials had only begun when he reached Connaught. The officers employed had to be bribed by money, if the poor transplanter had any money left, if not, by a secret agreement to give the officers part of the land for laying out the rest, as some relief to him and his starving family. The Cootes, the Kings, the Binghams, the Coles, the St. Georges, the Ormsbys, the Gores, the Lloyds, having thus defrauded transplanters of part of their lots, bought up the remnant at two shillings and six pence, and three shillings per acre, and at the utmost five shillicgs.^f A ten years’ war and the transplantation to Connaught had made all but a desert of the other three Provinces, and the few inhabi- tants who remained in them, by sufferance or as outlaws, were “ as by two Justices of the Peace were certified to have really renounced Popery, and for six months past had constantly resorted to Protestant worship, were, on giving security to transplant by the 12th of April following, to be set at liberty.” That is, set at liberty out of jail, for, at the time, the jails were crowded with persons who, under one excuse or another, had refused to trans- plant. Cromwellian Settlement, p. 131. * Printed Declaration of 27th March, 1654, p. 263. Cromwellian Settle- ment, p. 123. f Cromwellian Settlement, p. 151, and authorities there quoted. IN IRELAND. 415 dying of starvation, so that in reading the harrowing accounts of the period we are forcibly reminded of the sufferings of the famine- stricken people after the wars of Hugh O’Neill, as described by Fynes Moryson."^' “In the years 1652 and 1653, the plague and famine had swept away whole countries, so that a man might travel twenty or thirty miles and not see a living creature. Man, beast and bird were all dead, or had quit those desolate plains. The troopers would tell stories of the place where they saw a smoke, it was so rare to see either smoke by day, or fire or candle by night.”t But those who, in their charitable anxiety, were determined to complete their task of teaching us the “ English civility and reli- gion,” regarded the work as still incomplete, and hence one of them expressed himself as follows : — “ We have three beasts to destroy (said Major Morgan) that lay burthens upon us. The first is the wolf, on whom we lay five pounds a head if a dog, and ten pounds if a bitch. The second beast is a priest, on whose head we lay ten pounds — if he be eminent, more. The third beast is a tory, on whose head, if he be a public tory, we lay twenty pounds ; and forty shillings on a private tory.”t Wolves had increased enormously during the war, for they had dead bodies to feed upon, and few had time to kill or hunt them. They increased still more after the war, for the Swordsmen who went to Spain, proud of their noble wolf dogs, in their affection, brought them into exile with them. When the government officials found they were doing so, they directed the tidewaiters at the different ports to seize the dogs, and send them to the huntsman of the precinct, that they might be used to aid in destroying the wolves, in the public hunts organised for the pur- pose. The readers of English histories of Ireland cannot have failed to remark that in them, with the exception of Lingard’s, every wickedness and misfortune is laid at the door of the priests by the unscrupulous writers, but the following charge by one of them appears to have been conceived and wrought out with special ingenuity : “ This curse [the increase of wolves], one of the consequences of the great desolation, the government charged upon the priests. For if the priests had not been in Ireland, the troubles would not have arisen, nor the English have * History of Ireland. By Fynes Moryson, Secretary to Lord Mountioy, Lord Deputy ; from 1599 to 1603.— Dublin Ed., 1735, Vol. II., p. 282. t Cromwellian Settlement, p. 307. t “ Burton’s Parliamentary Diary,” 10th June, 1657. Quoted in Cromwellian Settlement, p. 308. 416 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH come, nor have made the country almost a ruinous heap, nor would the wolves have so increased.”* The second burthensome beast was the priest. The Irish leaders always put forward freedom of religion as their first, or one of their first demands. It was always met by a curt decided negative. The English House of Parliament, in answer to this demand, passed a joint declaration in December, 1641, that they never could give their assent to any toleration of the Popish religion in Ireland, or in any other of his Majesty’s dominions, aud Cromwell in answer to the Acts of the Popish clergy at Clonmacnoise said that where the Parliament had power the Mass should not be allowed of.” The priest was always an out- law. Pym boasted that they would not leave a priest in Ireland. “ When any forces surrendered upon terms, priests ivere ahvays excepted ; priests were thenceforth out of protection, to be treated as enemies that had not surrendered. Twenty pounds were ofifered for their discovery, and to harbour them was death.”f Yet, they faced all this, remaining in the country for the salvation of souls, in daily and hourly expectation of martyrdom, and when they received the martyr’s crown, others pressed forward with a holy emulation to seek the same; “for they spare not,” says their enemy Edmund Spenser, “ to come out of Spaine and Pome, and from Pemes, by long toyle and daungerous travayling hither, where they know perill of death awaiteth them, and no reward or richesse is to be found, only to draw the people unto the Church of Pome ; whereas some of our idle Ministers, having a way for credite and estimation thereby opened unto them, and having the livings of the country offered unto them, without paines, and without perill, will neither for the same, nor any love of God, nor zeale for religion, nor for all the good they may doe, by winning soules to God, bee drawne foorth from their warme neastes, to looke out into God’s harvest.’’^; * Declaration of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland [Cromwell] in answer to the Declaration of the Irish Prelates and clergy in a Conventicle at Clonmacnoise. Printed at Corke, and now reprinted at London. — Ed. Griffin at the Old Bayley, March 21st, 1650. , . , , , , By a similar process of reasoning it is proved that it is the Irish that have ■ caused the ruin, the plundering, and desolation of the country, from the days of the first invasion, for so many ages.— See Cromwellian Settlement, p. 310. The most curious evidence of the number of wolves at this time is, that lands lying only nine miles north of Dublin were leased by the State in 1653, under conditions of keeping a hunting establishment, with a pack of wolf hounds for killing the wolves, part of the rent to be discounted in wolves’ heads. Under this lease. Captain Edward Piers was to have all the State lands in the barony of Dunboyne, in the Co. of Meath.— Ibid., p. 311. ]■ Several Proceedings in Parliament from 21st to 28th November, 1650. X View of the State of Ireland, p. 254. Dublin reprint, 1809. IN IKELAND. 417 Of all the tenets of the Catholic Church, the Mass most excited the fury of her enemies in this country. Cromwell fearing his indiscriminate and indefensible slaughter of the people of Drogheda might give displeasure at headquarters, indirectly makes the saying of Mass in the town the apology for it. Hence in his second letter to Speaker Lenthal, he says, — “ It is remarkable that they had ‘ set up’ the Mass in Drogheda, and had even ‘ a public Mass in a place called St. Peter’s ” and to show what swift retribution overtook them for such wickedness, he adds, and in this very place near one thousand of them was put to the sword.”* “ The setting up” of the Mass is evidently put forward as a sufB.cient justification of the savage butchery. If the fact of having said Mass could not be proved against a priest, the authorities often contented themselves with casting him into prison. “ George Montgomery, the Protestant Bishop of Derry and Baphoe, in a letter to Sir Arthur Chichester, speaks of two friars thus : — ‘ The friar O’Mulerky had been straggling (he says) contrary to his (Montgomery’s) caveat and his promise, and is fallen into Captain Philip’s hands at Coleraine. It would not be good to enlarge him hastily. The other friar, Prior O’Loon, imprisoned there for saying a Mass, and enlarged by Chichester’s warrant in hopes of his conformity, he (Montgomery) had thus far prevailed with, that he was contented to forbear for ever afterwards from saying of Masses upon pain of being hanged, if it should be proved against him.’ ’’f The priests had no fear of being betrayed by their own people for any amount of money, but their enemies, more especially the professional priest-hunters (for in those days priest- hunting was a profession and a lucrative one), discovered the places of their concealment by various devices. A very common one was to track Catholics whom they observed leaving home quietly, with more or less appearance of being prepared for a journey, guessing they would be proceeding to the hiding-place of some priest to receive his ministrations. It was in this way the martyr* bishop of Down and Connor, Cornelius O’Devany, fell into the hands of his enemies. Passing themselves off as Catholics was another trick of the priest-hunters for getting at their prey. So far were the Catholics from betraying their priests, that they often risked their lives in their defence. “On the 8th of May, 1653, Richard and Thomas Tuite, Edmund and George Barnwall and William Fitzsimons, all names belong- * See ante, p. 332. t Most Rev. Dr. Moran’s Introduction to Rothe’s Analecta (new Ed.), Preface, p. ci. 2d 418 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH ing to what would be now called the Catholic gentry, maintained the castle of Baltrasna, in the county of Meath, in defence and rescue of a priest, supposed to have repaired thither to say Mass. For this they were arrested and their goods seized. To these Cornet Greatrex and his soldiers laid claim, on the ground of a forcible entry of the said castle, kept against them with arms and ammunition by such, who maintained a priest in his idolatrous worship, in opposition to the declaration of the State in that behalf.”^ Writing to the Secretary of the Council in England on the 1 1th of May, 1610, the Lord Deputy (Chichester) remarks that the hearts of all the faithful subjects are already sad and heavy at the abuse and liberty of the priests and people in the exercise of their religion, from which they cannot restrain them without slaughter or the gallows, for which they have neither law nor warrant.” He further says that his agents lately apprehended a priest “by disguising themselves as he was saying Mass at Multifarnham in W estmeath ; and as they were carrying him before a justice of the peace, the country rose, and rescued him from the parties employed and hurt them in sundry places, notwithstanding they showed them his (the Lord Deputy’s) warrant, and told them he was a proclaimed traitor.”f A few days later he again writes to the same praying for “a commission for the adjudging and execution of pirates and priests, who vex and disturb the kingdom more than can be understood by others than them that feel it.”t The daring devotion of the people to their priests was astonish- ing ; and after all this hatred of the Mass and priest-hunting it may surprise the reader to learn that ‘‘ During the whole time the Archbishop [O’Doveany] was in prison he almost daily said Mass, making use of vestments secretly conveyed into the prison by some Catholics.”§ The priests being harboured and protected by the people at all risks, it was considered necessary to use severer measures. So the Government, “ on the 6 th of January, 1652-3, by Declaration introduced the sanguinary English. Statute, 27th Elizabeth (a.d. 1585), and declared all * Croniw. Settlement, p. 45; ih., pp. 65, 67. t Calendar of State Papers (Ireland), Vol. II., p. 445. + Ib., p. 473. ’ § Compendious History of the Martyrdom of the Rt. Rev. F. Cornelius O’Doveany of the Order of Friars Minors, Bishop of Down and Connor, and of his Chaplain, extracted from the letters sent from Ireland to the Irish Friar Minors in Louvain. In Burgundian Library at Brussels, MS. 2167, p. 421. IN IRELAND. 419 Roman Catholic Priests to be guilty of high treason, and their relievers felons.”* * * § Yet still in all parts of the nation there was found a succession of these intrepid soldiers of religion to perform their sworn duties, meeting the relics of their flocks in old raths, under trees, and in ruined chapels, or secretly administering to individuals in the very houses of their oppressors, and in the ranks of their armies.”f I must pass on from this subject, for want of space prevents me from treating it more fully. But briefly, as the heroism and sufifer- ing of Irish priests are treated here, I have no doubt they will remind many readers of St. Paul’s account of his labours and persecutions. Thus writes the great Apostle of the Grentiles to the Corinthians : “ Of the J ews five times did I receive forty stripes, save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once I was stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I was in the depths of the sea; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils from my own nation, in perils from the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils from false brethren; in labour and painfulness, in much watching, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.’’^ The third burthensome beast was the outlaw or Tory. This word “Tory” appears for the first time officially in a proclamation issued by Ormonde, dated 24th of May, 1650, in which he orders all these loose and ill-disposed persons that pillage the protected inhabitants of Leinster, and will not submit to any commands, living upon the people of the country, and that are termed Toryes or Idle Boys to enlist in his Majesty’s army, or be deemed traitors.§ But the word Tory, (signifying outlaw,) existed among the people, the class of persons to whom it was by degrees applied having come into existence at the time of the plantation of Munster by Elizabeth, being the owners or the repre- sentatives of the owners of the confiscated lands.[J The bands * “ Order for bauishing Priests,” signed Charles Fleetwood, Edmund Ludlow, Miles Corbet, John Jones. t Cromw. Settlement, p. 325, J II. Cor. c. xi., vv. 24 et seq. § Carte Papers, Vol. clxii. II The derivation of the word Tory has exercised linguists a good deal. 1. One of the words given as its root is tora, from the Irish verb tahoLir, to give ; but there is no letter o in this verb, and it has been wrongly imported into tora. The sound of h in it approaches very nearly to the English sound of w, so that its pronunciation may be written tawur, giving a sound * somewhat removed from tora, and therefore from Tory.' In my opinion therefore, is not the root of Tory. 2. Taob-rigli — the King's party, is a compound word 420 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH of Tories in the woods and bogs were constantly recruited by the dispossessed natives, who preferred taking their chance with them to transplantation, many also joined them to avoid transportation to the Barbadoes, where they must become the slaves of the planters ; and even some of the swordsmen clung to home rather than go to Spain. Thus strengthened from various sources the Tories became a terror to the English settlers, and holding their ground in their fastnesses, they, as opportunity served, “ fell down like wolves on the usurpers of their homes and country.”* “ The Parliament had for ages made the killing of an Irishman no murder, and the taking his lands no robbery. Yet this retribution of the Tories on the Cromwellians was, of course, always called outrage and murder ; and for their preys they were called robbers. As such they were solemnly hanged .... Here it was not the big thieves leading the little thieves, but the plunderers leading the plundered to the gallows.”*!* “In 1647, war was still raging, and incursions from which some derive Tory. This derivation has more in its favour than the former ; the pronunciation of it comes pretty near that of Tory, and, as is well known, the people known as Tories in Ireland were opposed to the Parliamen- tarians and in favour of the King. Still, such a respectable phrase as “ the King’s party” w’ould scarcely be applied to those who were regarded as robbers and murderers of the deepest dye, and to destroy whom was a service as accept- able to the state as the hanging of priests or the shooting of wolves. The late Archbishop Trench gives a definition of Tories which is somewhat curious. He says: “Tories was a name properly belonging to the Irish bogtrotters who, during the Civil Wars, robbed and plundered, professing to be in arms for the maintenance of the Royal cause.” His Grace, I think, spoils his definition by the use of the contemptuous word “ bogtrotter,” and makes it incorrect besides. Surely, sometime or another, his nurse must have said or sung to him ; — “ I’ll tell you a story about John Magory — He went to the wood and killed a Tory ; I’ll tell you another about his brother — He went to the ivood and killed another.” But according to the Archbishop, the excellent brothers Magory could not accomplish their pious design of killing Tories, by going to a wood, as they were to be found in the bogs only. Not to weary the reader, I come to what seems to me the most probable root of the word Tory. De Foe derives it from the verb toruig — to pursue, from the habit (he says) of Tories to make sudden raids. I agree as to the root, but dissent from the explanation, because to pursue (the meaning of the word) is quite different from making a raid. The Irish noun for pursuit is toir, and I have many times heard the hurried warning given — ta an toir ort — “ the pursuit is upon you,” and always to persons who, if caught, w^ould be punished ; a further phrase with the same meaning is, Amachgohrath leat, ta an toir ort^ which may be translated, “Run for your life, the pursuit is upon you.” Now, as Tory hunting was, as somebody has written, “ a favourite pastime in Ireland,” I think Tory is derived from the above word, not because Tories made sudden raids, but because they w’ere hunted by persons who made sudden raids upon them. ♦ Cromw. Settlement, p. 332. t Cromw. Settlement, p. 333. IN IRELAND. 421 were made into the Irish quarters by the English, and into the English quarters by the Irish, and cattle carried off by each side. This Colonel Michael Jones, Governor of Dublin, declared could not be by the Irish unless by the connivance of their kindred and friends, and tenants living protected within the English quarters. .... He accordingly issued his Declaration (of 2nd November, 1647), making the Irish in the English quarters responsible for the outrages committed on the persons, goods and estates of the Protestants by their kindred from the enemies’ quarters Colonel Hewson, Avho succeeded Colonel Michael Jones as Governor of Dublin, issued another proclamation on 25 February, 1649-50, declaring that such was the neglect and contempt of the former proclamation by the protected Irish that there were daily murders, robberies, and other most cruel outrages committed by the Tories and rebels coming into the English quarters without control or pursuit of the Papist inhabitants The kindred, he stated, were difficult to be found out, and when found, were not worth the finding. He accordingly ordained that all the inhabi- tants within the English quarters (being Papists), that should suffer any of the said Tories and rebels to pass through any of their baronies, should contribute rateably with those of the barony where the outrage was committed, unless within ten days they made the criminals amenable.”^ Here was protection with a vengeance ! By Jones’s proclamation the Irish (said to be “protected”), within the English quarters were made responsible for the outrages committed, and the preys carried off from those quarters by the Irish who were still in arms, over whom, of course, they could exercise no manner of control. Small armies were still actively engaged in the field, and carried on a system of incursions and reprisals with which peaceable and ‘‘protected” inhabitants had nothing to do. The English in the case were, of course, praiseworthy soldiers carrying on legitimate warfare, whilst the Irish were called Tories and robbers. Colonel Hewson begins his proclamation with the assertion that Jones’s was “ neglected and despised,” but the real truth seems to be that the protected Irish were so fined and fleeced under it, that they were no longer able to pay the charges imposed on them by their protectors, and so Hewson enlarged the area of responsibility by mulcting the inhabitants of the baronies through which Tories (or raiders) were allowed to pass on their expeditions, as if those peaceable and unarmed people could prevent them. The Tories being outlaws, carried arms in defiance of authority, whilst it was death for the peaceable, “ protected” papists to have such in their * ibid. 422 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH possessions, and yet they were bound under heavy penalties to arrest or rout the armed Tories ! This was a hard fate indeed, for they must choose between being shot down on the one side, and utter ruin on the other.* The Presbyterians of Ulster were condemned to transplanta- tion as well as the Irish Papists; but observe what happened in the sequel. “The Presbyterians had sided with the Parlia- ment from the commencement of the Civil War, until the Independents became the prevailing party and executed the King. They acknowledged no presbyters, no ordination, and superseded the Presbyterian worship. The Presbyterians had been opposed to the King and the Royalists, by them styled Malignants, as supjDorters of prelacy, until the King’s death ; but they fell off from the Parliament when Cromwell and the Independents destroyed the King and the monarchy, and had superseded the Presbyterian discipline. The engagement, under the Act of 12th August, 1652, for the settlement of Ireland was, to be faithful to the Commonwealth as establishad with- out a King or House of Lords. The Presbyterians refused this oath as against the Covenant, and Sir Robert Adair and others of their party were sent to Munster to examine the places in- tended for their settlement. The scheme of transplanting them was in all particulars like the scheme for transplanting the Irish proprietors, except only that the transplantation of the Irish was mercilessly enforced, while that against the Scots of Ulster never proceeded beyond their threatening orders.”f The country was divided into Precincts. On the 6th of December, 1653, Commissioners of Inquiry into the delinquency of Landed Proprietors in the fifteen Precincts were directed to appoint special Commissioners in each Precinct, with power to summon and examine witnesses upon oath, on a set of interro- gatories formed to elicit the delinquency of each proprietor. * Specimen of the fines imposed. Papist inhabitants of the barony of D un- boy ne to pay £185, decreed to H. Mills and W. Kennedy ; the said inhabitants of Dunboyne to recover contribution against the Papist inhabitants of Katoath and Deece, through which the enemy passed ; or against harbourers of said Tories, or who neglected to raise the hue and cry. Cromw. Settlement, 33S note, p. 276. 06s. The price set on the head of a Tory was from 40s. to £30 according to the quality of the Tory who had owned the head. Any Tory who had not been convicted of any previous murder, could by murdering any two of his comrades and bringing in their heads, purchase his own pardon. Cromw. Settl., p. 344. t “ The Settling of Ireland.” A MS. by J. P. Prendergast, marked V, and kindly placed at my disposal by that gentleman. This “ Settling of Ireland” was, as Borlase correctly calls it : “ That great Act of Confiscation of all the Rebels’ lands,” and was passed the 12th of August (1652). Irish Insurrection, p. 365. IN IRELAND. 423 The delinquency of the Irish was of easy proof ; for to be Irish and Catholic was to .be transportable. According to the first principles of justice, everyone is to be deemed innocent until he is proved to be guilty. And by that rule the English and Pro- testant inhabitants of Ireland were dealt with. To have been in arms against the Parliament, to have been a besieger of Derry, to have shared in the driving of Colonel Monk from his command, were crimes, which if alleged and proved before the Commis- sioners, a British or Scottish Protestant was to be transplanted. But in the case of the Irish, — every Irish proprietor was deemed guilty. The dreadful letters I. P., or Irish Papist (not I. R., or Irish Rebel), after each name were enough to condemn any of them to Connaught, for all proprietors were to proceed to Athlone, and there produce each “ the series of their Carriages,’' — in other words, prove his “Constant Good Affection” to the Parliament of England.* 424 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH CHAPTER XXL Oliver Cromwell died at Whitehall, on the 12th of August 1658; “and on the same day happened the greatest storm of wind that ever was known.”* The Council immediately assem- bled, and the result of their deliberations was an order to pro- claim his elder son, Richard, Protector, on the ground that he had been declared by his late highness his successor in that dignity. It is not at all certain that “ his highness ” had made such an appointment. However, Richard was proclaimed as Lord Protector in all places, the ceremony being performed in the usual manner of announcing the accession of a new Sovereign. There was not a murmur of opposition on the occasion. But Richard Cromwell had not the ability to hold his ground in this new and trying position. England still swarmed with Cavaliers who watched every opportunity to find fault with his govern- ment, and exaggerate its defects. Other enemies he also had. Disappointed men of his own party, who had been awed into silence by his father, now began to show their discontent and ambition. Oliver was made Protector, or was strong enough to seize that office, because he was a brave and successful soldier ; but here was a man who had never drawn a sword. Was he to be elevated over the heads of those who had fought and bled for the good old cause ? He was despised by the army, officers and men. His authority, such as it was, declined daily, until he found himself without any. He was then ordered to remove from Whitehall, the Parliament undertaking to pay his debts, which amounted to some £30,000, and the nation found itself in the hands of the military. The Parliament made some efforts to assert its authority, but the “strong hand” always wins in such struggles; so the army, quartered in London and its neighbourhood, was now the government Henry Cromwell, Oliver’s second son, was a very different person from his brother, Richard. The latter, in his father’s lifetime gave himself up to gaiety and debauchery, chiefly among the Cavaliers, whom he, no doubt, found pleasanter companions than the pious fanatics who surrounded the Lord Protector. Henry embraced a military life, and soon became * Wade’s British Chronology, 3rd Ed. p. 214. IN IRELAND. 425 a captain in the regiment of guards belonging to Fairfax, the Lord- General. He accompanied his father on his Irish expedi- tion, and afterwards governed it, first as Major-General, and later with the title of Lord-Deputy. His rule in Ireland has been generally, and it would seem, justly praised for its mildness. When his brother Kichard was compelled to retire from W^hite- hall, a strong resistance was expected from Henry and his Irish forces, with whom he was a favourite ; but he was per- plexed with the different courses suggested to him by his friends. He hesitated too long, and his indecision ruined him. So being reduced to the necessity of becoming a suppliant to the Parliament, he was graciously permitted by them to retire into private life. Thus rapidly did the house that Oliver built disappear from the scene ! The Cavaliers were in high spirits, as they considered they now saw the way clear for the King’s restoration ; but the diffi- culties still before them were much greater than they imagined. The ambitious designs of the chief generals, from amongst whom it was possible another Oliver might arise, were full of danger to the royal cause ; and the royalists themselves had, by their impatience, well nigh dashed to pieces the hopes of a speedy restoration. A rising in favour of the King was organised in every county, but it broke down utterly, except in the case of Booth’s movement in Cheshire, which at first was formidable ; but Lambert, by the rapidity of his movements and his general- ship, soon dispersed the insurgents. In spite of all mishaps, how- ever, Monk succeeded in effecting the restoration of Charles Stuart to the throne of his ancestors. This famous man was of a good Devonshire family, being the son of Sir Thomas Monk. His father’s property was heavily encumbered, and he being a younger son, was thrown upon his own resources. So he took to the profession of arms before he had completed his seventeenth year, and was one of the unsuccessful expedition sent to make a descent upon Cadiz, in 1625. He was afterwards employed in other Continental wars in which England was then engaged. In February, 1642, he arrived in Dublin with the rank of Lieut. - Colonel, in charge of 1,500 foot soldiers, which together with 400 horse, under the command of his kinsman. Sir B. Greville, were sent as reinforcements to aid in putting down the Eising of 1641. In 1649, we find him governor of Dundalk, which he held for the 'Parliament. On the 8th of May in that year, articles were agreed upon between himself and Owen Eoe O’Neill, which were very favourable to Owen and the Irish.* Having been necessi- * See p. 294. 426 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH tated to yield Dundalk to Colonel Mark Trevor, lie proceeded to England, where he was greatly blamed by the Council of State for having concluded a peace “ with that grand and bloody Irish rebel, Owen Kowe O’Neill.”* Although the Council pronounced no distinct censure on Monk, interpreting what he did as an error of judgment, he was much provoked by the whole business, and some did think it was never foregotten by him.” j* From the time of Cromwell’s famous march in pursuit of the King to Worcester, Monk had commanded in Scotland, where, instead of concerning himself with the movements and intrigues of parties in England, he appeared to have no other occupation than the duties of his place — to preserve the discipline of his army, and enforce the obedience of the Scots. He sent des- patches regularly to Cromwell, but to his credit, be it said, that they were business-like documents, equally free from flattery of the Protector, and from those pious sentiments and quotations in which others indulged who wished to stand well with him. *Monk had two qualities in greater abundance than most other men, impenetrable secrecy, and the power of dissembling his real sentiments ; and it was to a considerable extent, through their means that, on the 29th of May, 1660, he succeeded in establish- ing Charles II. in Whitehall, undisputed King of England.^ With the intricate movements of Monk, and the King’s triumphant progress from Dover to London, we have no concern here. Besides they can be found in the histories of the period. One thing, however, may be said : it is, that Monk has been blamed on all sides for not exacting some terms from Charles which would hind him to govern in a constitutional manner. His motive for this can he only guessed at, hut certain it is that his not having done so brought ruin on the House of Stuart. The Irish expected that the Restoration of Charles would have brought them some amelioration of their wrongs and sufferings. They had fought for his father, they had fought for himself. For although their enemies, that they might rob them with impunity, persisted in calling them rebels, they were always devoted to the royal cause, while at the same time putting for- ward, as they had a perfect right to do, their claim to be governed by the same laws as the rest of his subjects. It was not long before Charles showed thathisirish Catholic subjects — plundered, transported, transplanted, as they had been for attachment to his * Whitelock’s English Affairs, p. 419. t Ibid. t See Preface to Skinner’s Life of Monk. By Rev. W. Webster, p. viii. Liu- gard’s England, Vol. VIII., p. 299. IN IRELAND. 427 house — had nothing to expect from him. He began by heaping favours on his enemies, to the neglect of his friends who had staked and lost everything in his service. During the interreg- num, Broghill was president of Munster, and Ooote of Connaught. There are no names in the whole range of our history, Crom- well’s alone excepted, more suggestive of blood and murder than these two. Broghill deserted the King and joined Cromwell, and was, moreover, a cruel villain ; while the Cootes, father and son, in their thirst for blood, spared neither women nor children. But the women and children tortured and slaugh- tered by them, were the wives and daughters and children of men who had fought for their rightful sovereign against his enemies. Well, the Restoration of the King took place on the 29th of May, 1660, and so great was his hurry to reward and honour his enemies, that in the following September, about three months after his arrival in London, he created Broghill Earl of Orrery, and Coote, Earl of Mountrath,* making them also Lords- Justices to rule the people they had plundered, and whose kith and kin they had slaughtered. The Cromwellians, although the children of light, were also wise in their generation, and when they saw the Restoration of the King was about to happen, they, in spite of their hatred of kingship, proceeded not only to make their peace with him, but to secure his goodwill in a very effective way. On the fall of Richard Cromwell, a council of officers was established in Dublin ; these summoned a convention of deputies from the Protestant proprietors ; and the convention tendered to Charles the obedience of his ancient kingdom of Ireland. It was not that the members felt any strong attachment to the cause of royalty. They had been among the most violent and enterprising of its adversaries; but their fear of the natives, whom they had trampled in the dust, compelled them to follow the footsteps of the English Parliament. To secure the royal protection, they made the King an offer of a considerable sum of money, assured him, though falsely, that the Irish Catholics meditated a general insurrection, and prayed him to summon a Protestant Parliament in Ireland, which might confirm the existing proprietors in the undisturbed possession of their estates. The present was graciously accepted ; and the penal laws against the Irish Catholics were ordered to be strictly enforced ; but Charles was unwilling to call a parlia- * “ Roger Boyle, Lord Broghill (afterwards Earl of Orrery), whose name, like that of Sir C. Coote, seems ever the prelude of woe to the Irish,” &c. — Cromw. Settlement^ p. 94. 428 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH ment, because it would necessarily consist of men, whose principles, civil and religious, he had been taught to distrust.* With regard to the “ General Insurrection” of the Catholics, we may ask how they could rise in rebellion, imprisoned as they were in Connaught, with the sea at one side of them and the Shannon at the other, and as if that was not sufficient to shut them in, there was a cordon of the ex-soldiers of Cromwell planted round about them like a belt of trees round a demesne. “The King was proclaimed in Dablin, on May 14th, and as soon as the order was received, in all the great towns of the kingdom with wonderful acclamations of joy. This was followed with a very handsome and loyal address [from the convention mentioned above], and a present of £20,000 to his Majesty, £4,000 to the Duke of York, and £2,000 to the Duke of Gloucester. The Convention afterwards, on the 25th of that month, appointed the Lord Broghill, Sir C. Coote, and others, to attend his Majesty as their Commissioners, to present to him the desires of the ISiation, and on the 28th, adjourned to the first of November following.f In their instructions to the Commis- sioners they besought his Majesty to call a Parliament in Ireland, consisting of Protestant peers and Commoners ; and in order thereto, to appoint a chief governor and council for the trans- mission of bills to the King and Council in England. The rest of their desires were a general pardon and indemnity to all the Protestants in Ireland, in such a manner, and with such exceptions, as should be agreed on in the next Parliament [an exclusively Protestant one] ; an Act of Attainder in the same manner ; a settlement of the book of rates by the like authority; a remission of all compositions, and Exchequer rents reserved on grants made before October 23rd, 1641, till the last Easter [1660]; a confirmation of judicial proceedings, and of all ordi- nances and declarations of the Convention, and (what they had most at heart) an Act for settling the estates of Adventurers, soldiers, and transplanted Irish in Connaught and Clare.”J It is commonly asserted by the historians of the period, that the Irish Catholic proprietors who had been declared by Crom- well innocent of the rebellion, and who had been ejected from their * Clarendon Contin., 57* Lingard’s England, Vol. IX., p. 267. t It was certainly a cool piece of ejffrontery for this knot of Cromwellian officers to call themselves the nation. t Carte’s Ormonde, Vol II., p. 204. Taking all the circumstances of the case into account, I think it would be impossible to find a parallel for the list of favours demanded (rather than asked) from Charles II., by those who were in Ireland the instruments and representatives of his father’s murderers. IN IRELAND. 429 estates and transplanted to Connanglit, did, without awaiting the process of law, expel the intruders and re-enter on their patrimo- nial lands. But how far the " innocent” (as they were called) Irish carried this system of re-entering by force is now impossible to determine, as the documents which would clear it up have been lost. One thing is certain, that whatever those Catholic pro- prietors did would be sure to be exaggerated and turned to their disadvantage by the new settlers in their communications to England; and one historian says, no doubt with perfect truth, that these acts of the Irish were most acceptable to the new English, because they enabled them to arouse the prejudices of those in England against them."^ Even before the above Commissioners had been dispatched to * See Leland’s Ireland, Vol. III., p. 409. Failing to find satisfactory evidence about this re-entering of the Irish pro- prietary without legal authority, I had recourse to my learned friend, J. P. Prendergast, Esq., for advice, who, in reply, was kind enough to write me the following letter : — “My Dear Canon O’Rourke,— To what extent the late proprietors at- tempted to get back into their lands at the Restoration, I have never been able to ascertain. But as the occupants had no legal title, some probably did try. This was no crime in their view, as they [the late proprietors] had good right. The King on coming to London issued a Proclamation prepared for him by the Convention, ordering no Adventurer or Soldier to be interfered with ; but this had not the force of law. “To what extent the former proprietors proceeded to recover their lands I could never learn. The numbers were probably exaggerated by the Crom- wellians. There was a terrible loss of documents by the great fire of 15th of April, 1711, so that much of the history has been'irreparably lost. “Yours very truly, “John P. Prendergast.” “ P.S. — A more common thing was, for some of those Irish ofiicers who had borne the King’s Ensigns in France, Spain, and Flanders, to get the King’s letter restoring them ; and the Cromwellian occupant not knowing how far he might resist the King’s command, yielded up his lot. But no sooner was the Declaration of Settlement of 30th November, 1660, issued than the Cromwellian applied to the Commissioners for executing the Declaration, to be restored — and he was so ! For near 6 months (from 29th May to 30th Nov., 1660), the Crom- wellians had no security, but the King’s Proclamation of May 29, 1660, that they should not be disturbed, but as the King’s Signature to his Letter under Privy Seal, was as good as his Signature to the Proclamation, the Cromwellian thought he was bound to yield. This I learned from the only book of Orders of the Commissioners that escaped destruction. There must have been many, many of these Oi:^er Books.” Ohs. The “ innocent” Irish had as good a right to enter at once upon the possession of their property at the Restoration as the loyal English had, yet the latter did so, and no fault was found with them for so doing. With reference to the Duke of Ormonde, Carte says : — “ The Parliament of England restored the Duke to his estate in Ireland ; but this was only a mark of their respect, for he might as well have entered upon his own lands as all in England did, whose estates had been taken from them by the usurpers, for their loyalty'^ Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. II., p. 398. The Italics are mine in the above extract.— J. O’R. 430 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH the King, the Convention had taken care to send Sir John Clotworthy and Mr. William Aston as Commissioners to the English Parliament, “ to see that nothing was there done to the prejudice of the Adventurers or soldiers, or towards qualifying the Irish for recovering possession of their estates. They were apprehensive that the Act of Oblivion and general Indemnity, which the English Parliament were drawing up, in order to be presented to the King at landing, might he so extensive as to comprehend the Koman Catholics of Ireland. To prevent this, other Agents (besides those of the Convention) were sent over by the Adventurers and other parties concerned in the new purchases in that kingdom. These all attended the House of Commons in England, suggesting continually that they could never be secure in any Parliament that should be called in Ireland, except they could exclude out of the Act of Indemnity, then under their consideration, all persons who had any hand in the Kebellion ; under which notion they comprehended promiscuously all those of the Romish religion who had been either sequestered or in arms.” This “notion” substantially meant the exclusion of the whole Catholic Population of Ireland from the Act of Indemnity. The Act was prepared in accordance with these suggestions ; it was provided by one of the clauses, that “ it should not extend to restore to any persons the estates disposed of by authority of any Parliament or Convention, and it was with some difficulty that the exception was inserted of ‘ the Marquis of Ormonde and other Protestants of Ireland.’ Some other provisos were attempted, which must have utterly ruined the old English families of the country ; but they were suspended, and afterwards defeated by the Marquis.”* The reader may well pause in surprise when he contrasts this legislation with what was done with regard to England and Scotland. The English Act of Indemnity was with justice called an act of general pardon, for it declared, “ that all the injuries and offences against the Crown or individuals, arising out of quarrels between political parties since the 1st of June, 1637, should be and were forgiven.” Then came the exceptions. 1. From this general pardon were excepted fifty-one individuals actually concerned in the death of the King’s father. A few more were excepted, as far as regarded liberty and property; and sixteen by name as to eligibility to hold office, civil, military or ecclesiastical. It was even conceded that nineteen of the regicides who had yielded themselves up should not be executed without a Leland’s Ireland, Vol. III., pp. 410-11. IN IRELAND. 431 special Act of Parliament passed for that purpose.* So much for England. Now let us see how Scotland fared. “In Scotland during the Commonwealth, justice had been administered by English Commissioners, without any regard to the laws and con- stitution of that Kingdom, whereupon the King, by his procla- mation, ordered these tribunals to be abolished on the 22nd of August (1660), and that the Kingdom should be restored to its ancient form of Government. A committee of the three estates was convened, the great ofidcers of state appointed out of the native nobility, and a Parliament summoned to meet at Edinburgh the 12th of Dec., (1660), to whom the King referred the preparing an act of indemnity.’’t As has been stated above, three accredited representative bodies were sent to England at this time — two by the Convention of Cromwellian officers sitting in Dublin (one to the King and one to the Parliament), and the third by the Adventurers and other interested parties. The object of all was substantially the same, to so misrepresent the native Irish as to induce the authorities in England to keep them outlaws, lest they should derive any advantage from the Restoration. Here is what the Protestant Leland writes about the way they were treated at home : “ In the meantime the severest ordinances lately made [by the Crom- wellians] against the Irish Roman Catholics were strictly executed. They were not allowed to ]pass from one Province to another on their ordinary business; many of them were imprisoned, their letters were intercepted; their gentry were forbidden to meet, and thus deprived of the opportunity of choosing agents, or representing ’ grievances !'% So their enemies had ample time to fill the minds of the King and his Council with prejudices against them, founded on baseless false- hoods, which they had no opportunity of contradicting. And because they spoke with warmth, when at last admitted to appear before the King and Council, Ormonde says of them with haughty commiseration : — “ I fear the liberty allowed the Irish to speak for themselves, will turn to their prejudice by the unskilful use they make of it, in justifying themselves, instructing the King and Council in what is good for them, and recriminat- ing of others. Whereas a modest extenuation of their crimes, an * Lingard, Vol. IX., p. 6. 25 of the regicides were already dead, 19 had escaped beyond the seas, and 29 remained in custody— 73. The number of the King’s judges was 67 ; the oiher 6 were connected with his death in other ways, t Wade’s British Chronology, 2 Ed., p. 221. t History of Ireland, Vol. III., p. 410. Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. II., p. 205. The Italics are mine. — J.O’E. 482 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH humble submission to, and imploring bis Majesty’s grace, and a declaration of tbeir hearty desire to live quietly and brotherly [as became plundered serfs] with their fellow-subjects for the future, would better have befitted the disadvantage they are under, and have prevailed more than all their eloquence. But it is long since I have given over any hope that they would do, or be advised to do, what was best for them.”* Preposterous as were the demands of the agents sent from Dublin to the English Parliament by the Cromwellian officers, the King’s ‘‘Declaration for the Settlement of Ireland” was mainly founded upon them. This Declaration is embodied in, and forms the chief part of, the Act of Settlement, the preambJe to which is, as Mr. Froude confesses, “ a miracle of ingenuity.” At the time the Act became law, the Lord Lieutenant was the same Ormonde whom Cromwell had defeated, thereby acquiring absolutely the power of confiscating the lands of the Irish people. This confiscation on the part of Cromwell, so far from being reversed by the Act of Settlement, was legalised by it ; yet to the passing of the said Act, the facile Ormonde made no objection whatever, — on the contrary he exerted all his influence to have it passed. In the preamble Oliver was denounced and disowned with expressions of horror, but his followers were made the legal possessors of those lands, of which he had robbed the real owners who were the King’s loyal subjects, at a time when he was in rebel- lion against him. Coote and Broghill were made Lords J ustices — were titled and caressed as if they had been true to the King, whereas they fought forcibly against him, under the man who had the chief hand in bringing his father to the block.f The outburst of loyalty from this Cromwellian Parliament to Charles II. is admirable, and indeed edifying. “We humbly conceive,” they state, that “ it is our bounden duty at this time and in a special manner, as in the presence of God, to declare and testify that we renounce and abhor the bloudie, rebellious, and traitorous murder and parricide of your Majesty’s most royal father of blessed memory, and the principles and practices of those who have opposed, or shall at any time disturb or oppose your Majesty’s rights and happy settlement in this your kingdom, and we shall readily and faithfully, according to our bounden duty and allegiance, labour to bring all such persons unto condign punishment.”J ‘‘A miracle of ingenuity” sure enough is this * Ormonde’s Letter to Sir M. Eustace in Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. II., p. 233. t “ The execution of the King, as well as others, are not to be considered as Acts of the Parliament, but of Cromwell.”— 0. J. Fox, Life of James II., p. 13. Fronde’s English in Ireland in 18th century, Vol. I., p. 148. % 13 Chas. II., A.D. 1660, cap. 1. IN IRELAND. 433 preamble. The denunciation of “the traitorous murder and bloody parricide” can only refer to Oliver and his party, but with admirable skill and adroitness, the Parliament further on dimly shadows forth the Irish papists as the persons, whom, in their loyal zeal, they are ready to bring to condign punishment. But there is another passage in the preamble constructed with an ingenuity at least equal to the above. The Act of Settlement was dealt with by the Irish Parliament in the years 1660, 1661 and 1662, and these are called in the Irish Statutes the 13th, 14th and 15tli years of the reign of Charles II., although his Restoration only happened in the first of them, 1660. This arrangement of the years of his reign ignored the whole interregnum, in which Oliver played the principal part. The starting point taken seems to have been the time at which Charles I. was delivered up to the English Parliament by the Scots, which occurred in January, 1647.'^ Having abolished Oliver, one would suppose the next thing to be done was to abolish all his doings ; but no such thing. “ No proceedings,” they say, “ in law or equity since 23rd October, 1641, shall be avoided [made void] for want of legal power in the judges ... or by reason of the names, stiles, and titles used .... or language used.” Latin was the lan- guage of the law, but in Oliver’s time it was set aside for the English. Acts and Ordinances were to be as good “ as if ejfectual Acts of Parliament f and not to be vitiated by the authority put forward for them, nomoly Gustodes Libertatis Anglice Auctoritate Parliamenti. And further, they were not to be vitiated by the use of the name or style of Oliver, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland; or of the name, &c., of Richard, or by reason of any alteration of the said names, or any other cause. And then comes the following admir- able Brutum Fulmen: “And the actings, doings and proceedings thereupon shall be of such and no other force, effect and virtue than if such courts, judges, justices, commissioners, officers, and ministers had acted by virtue of a true, just, and legal authority, and as if the name, entry and enrolment thereof were in Latin, and as if the several acts and ordinances, or pretended acts and ordinances were made by both or either House of Parliament ; or * Some months previous to this time the Scots had, through Montrevil, the French agent, invited Charles I. to come to their army, and assured him that he might remain there with all security, and that his conscience should not be forced ; on this assurance he left Oxford in disguise, and went to them. He arrived with the Scots on 5th May, 1646. On 4th of January, 1647, (it would seem by previous arrangement) a Committee of both Houses was appointed to receive him from the Scots with 900 horse. The Scots after receiving £200,000 paid them by Parliament delivered up Charles to the English commissioners. — Wade’s British Chronology, 3rd Ed.,p. 192. 2 E 434 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH by Oliver, late styled Protector of the Common wealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging/' From the form in which the above passage begins it would seem that the actings, doings,” &c., of the Cromwellian rebels were to be effaced from the statute book, and treated as if non-existent. Then by the cunningly devised phraseology of the passage we are prepared for a recognition of those “ actings and doings,” but of a very slight and minimized kind. At last we are told with a well-feigned and apparently virtuous severity, that they “ shall be of such and no other force, effect and virtue than if such courts, judges, justices, commissioners, &c., had acted by virtue of a true, just, and legal authority.” Could cool effrontery go further? They give the acts of the Usurper and his rebel followers the same binding power as if they had emanated from the highest authority known to the constitution — the King, Lords and Commons of the nation, while by their crooked misleading phraseology, they wish the reader to infer that they are denouncing those “ actings and doings” with loyal indignation. The principal provisions of the Act of Settlement were : 1. It confirmed to the Adventurers all lands possessed by them on May 7th, 1659, and allotted to them according to the Acts of 17 and 18 of Charles I., and it engaged to make good any deficiencies to such as made proof of them before the 1st of May following. 2. It confirmed to the soldiers the lands possessed by them, and allotted to them for their pay; excepting church lands, lands obtained by false measurements, bribery, perjury, &c. 3. The officers who had served before June 5th, 1649, were to be satisfied for their respective arrears. The peace of '49 (as it was called) was made in the January of that year, and the King was beheaded on the 30th of the same month, in the same year. 4. Protestants, whose estates had been given to Adven- turers or soldiers, except such as had been in rebellion before the Cessation, or had taken out decrees for lands in Connaught or Clare, were to be forthwith restored, and they who were ousted from the said lands were to be reprized.* 5. “ Innocent” papists [left for the last of course], who had taken lands in Connaught ; that is, who had been transported to Con naug ht against their will, were to be restored to their estates by^ay"*2rnd;M 66 1 ; not forthwith like the Protestants; but if they had sold the Connaught lands, they were to satisfy the purchaser for the price paid, and the necessary repairs and improvements he had made ; and the Adventurers or soldiers so removed were to be forthwith reprized. In this matter of innocent Papists there * I.€., recompensed with other lands of equal value to those given up. IN IKELANl). 435 was a restriction made with regard to such as had lands within corporations. These were not to be restored to their old posses- sions, but only to be reprized in the neighbourhood. The reasons for this, although not mentioned in the A.ct, were (1) because the towns were the strongholds by which the country was held, and therefore were to be exclusively Protestant, (2) they returned the great majority of the members to Parliament, and being Pro- testant, would, as a matter of course, return Protestants. As for such as had been in rebellion, but submitted, and constantly adhered to the Peace of 1648, if they stayed at home, sued out decrees, and possessed lands in Connaught and Clare, they were to be bound thereby, and not relieved against their own act ; if they served faithfully under his Majesty’s ensigns abroad, and had sued out no decrees in Connaught or Clare, in compensation of their former estates, they were to be restored to them, hut not till the Adventurer or soldier who luas to he removed had a reprize set out to him ; had a reasonable satisfaction given him for the repairs and improvements he had made, and was reim- bursed the debts or other legal incumbrances which he had found upon the estate and had discharged ; such restoration and reprizes to be effected by October 23rd, 1661. There were thirty- nine of the Irish nobility and gentry (some of them entirely innocent, the others constant adherents to the peace), whom the King thought worthy of his particular favour, and he therefore directed that these (who were all named in the Declaration, and for that reason generally called Nominees) should, without being put to the trouble of further proof, be restored to their former estates, according to the rules and direc- tions given in the case of such as had faithfully served under his Majesty’s ensigns abroad. They are given below.* * 1. Earl of Clanrickarde ; 2. Earl of Westmeath; .3. Earl ofFingal; 4. Earl Clancarty ; 5. Lord V. Gormaustoa ; 6. Lord V. Mountgarret ; 7. Lord V. Dillon ; 8. Lord V. Taaffe ; 9. Lord V. Ikerryn ; 10. Lord Viscount Netter- ville ; 11. Lord V. Galmoy ; 12. Lord V. Mayo; 13. Lord Baron D unboy ne ; 14. Lord B. Trimblestown (sic) ; 15. Lord B. Dansany ; 16. Lord B. of IJpper Ossory ; 17. The Lord Bermingham ; 18. Baron of Athenry ; 19. Lord A of Strabane ; 20. Colonel Richard Batler ; 21. Sir Geo. Hamilton, Kut. and Bfc. ; 22. Sir Valentine Browne, Knt. ; 23. Sir Richard Barnewel, Bt. ; 24. Sir Remond Everard, Knt. ; 25. Sir Thomas Sherlock, Knt. ; 26. Sir Dermod O’Shaghnessy, Kut. ; 27. Sir Daniel O’Bryon, Knt. ; 28. Col. Christopher O’Brien; 29. Mr. Richard Belling, son to Sir Henry Belling, Knt.; 30. Richard Lane of Tulske, Esquire ; 31. Mr. Edmond Fitzgerald, of Balymalo ; 32. Mr. Thomas Butler, of Kilconnel ; 33. M'Namara, of Creevagh ; 34. Mr. David Power, of Kilbolane ; 35. Mr. Donough O’Callaghane, of Clonmeen ; 36. Mr.^ James Copinger, of Cloghane, in the County of Cork ; 37. Mr. George Fitzgerald of Tipcrochane ; 38. Mr. Barnard Talbot, of Rathdowne ; 39. and Conly Geo- ghegan of Donore. At the final settlement, under the Act of Explanation, the King added twenty additional Nominees of Ormonde’s choosing ; but none of 43(5 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH The Commissioners for carrying out the King’s Declaration for the Settlement of Ireland, sat at Dublin, and issued pro- clamations to all Adventurers, &c., within forty days, to bring in the particulars of their estates, and all persons to enter their claims before the 1st of May, 1661. But nothing, or next to nothing, was done in the matter, because the authority of the Commissioners was, on the very threshold of the business, denied by the judges, who gave it as their opinion, that the Declaration being only an act of State, was not a sufficient warranty in disposing of men’s estates ; and even if it were, the case would remain substantially the same, as no one could be ousted from possession of the land he held until a reprize was assigned him, and there was no prospect of there being sufficient lands found for these reprizes. Such was the care taken by Charles of the rebels who had dethroned and beheaded his father, and who had only just entered into the possession of lands which were not theirs, and such was the con- duct of the partial judges who acted in their interest, although the true owners had been but a short time before driven like droves of cattle into Connaught by the decree of a man whose corpse was disinterred at the Restoration and hung in chains, as the corpse of a rebel and regicide. A Parliament was summoned for the 8th of May (1661), and it proved to be precisely in accordance with the request made to the King for a Protestant Parliament. The effect of the opinion of the judges, denying the power of the Commissioners to deal with landed property, left the Adventurers and Soldiers in possession of their lands and tenements, and they were, in consequence, the electors who returned the members of the Lower House of Parliament. The elections were so well managed that the Cromwellian settlers were in an overwhelm* ing majority. Even of the old Protestant proprietors but those Nominees were restored to their entire estates; they only got their residences with 2,000 acres of land attached. On reading over the foregoing list one is struck with the preponderance of Norman-English names in it, from which a natural inference would be that the Norman-English were more devoted to the Royal cause than the Irish. But this would be a hasty and an incorrect conclusion. There is another list of names in the Act of Settlement, embodied in the King’s “ Declaration,” but which is too long to be inserted here ; it is the list of those oflScers and others who fought under the King’s ensigns abroad. This was a far severer test of loyalty than that of remaining quiescent within the English Pale in Ireland. This list contains between three and four hundred names, and in it the O’s, the Macs, and other unmistakable Irish patronymics are quite in the ascendant. 13 Charles II., Caps. I, and II. 14 and 15 Charles II., Cap. II. Irish Statutes, Yol. II., Cap. II. IN lEELAND. 437 few were returned, and not one Catholic.* The King had recommended Sir W. Domville, his Attorney-General, as Speaker of the House of Commons, but Sir Audley Mervyn, a vain man, and a great talker, being desirous for the post, wrote to the King representing his own merits, and his suffer- ings for the royal cause, and begging that his Majesty would not interpose, but leave the choice of Speaker to the House, The King did not insist on his recommendation ; Mervyn was chosen, as “being inclined to the Presbyterians,’’ while Dom- ville, the abler and more popular man, because suspected of being favourable to the Irish [Papists], was rejected.f The Parliament of 1661 was all that the Adventurers and Soldiers could wish, but this might not be the case in future Parliaments, as the Irish were going into the Courts of Law, intending to get their outlawries reversed, and so obtain writs of ejectment against the possessors of their estates. By this proceeding the Cromwellians were threatened with a double danger ; for if the Irish got writs of ejectment, a number of Adventurers and Soldiers would be dispossessed ; and the Irish [Papists] being re-instated would be in a position to return some members of their own Creed to parliament, who would give trouble and inflict injury on those Adventurers and Soldiers. The latter had begun to put themselves forward as the represen- tatives of the English interest in Ireland, a faction which intended so to interpret the Act of Settlement, as to exclude the Papists from its benefits, and to confirm everything to themselves. This could not be easily done if the Papists had a party in the House that would insist on the terms of the Act of Settle- ment, and on the proper carrying out of its provisions. The Adventurers and Soldiers, therefore, had the heads of a bill prepared imposing an oath on the members of Parliament which would have disqualified all the Homan Catholics. It was represented as absolutely necessary “ to prevent an Irish interest from overpowering and destro3ung the English.” When it came before the English Council it was set aside, and the promoters were told it was inopportune at a time when his Majesty was endeavouring to reconcile the jarring interests of his subjects in Ireland. J Nothing daunted they set about carrying their point by a clever trick. Under pretence of loyal zeal for his Majesty’s interests, by involving other disaffected persons in the same incapacity with Catholics, they proposed * Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. IL, p. 221. t Ibid., pp. 222, et seq. 438 THE BATTLE OE THE FAITH “ that no members should sit in their House, but such as should take the oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, which Catholics could not take, and that none of those, nor the sons of any of those that sat in the pretended High Court of Justice for the trial of the late King, [not one of whom, as far as I can discover, was then residing in Ireland, save Colonel Scot, whom they excepted, and herein lay the trick\ or in any other [Court of Justice], wherein sentence of death was pro- nounced against any of his Majesty’s subjects (except Colonel Thomas Scot, who had been very active in the Restoration), should be capable of sitting in that House.” But this was over- ruled by the Lords Justices, as trenching on the Royal pre- rogative, by assuming to themselves a power of requiring quali- fications from members different from what was expressed in his Majesty’s writ. The Upper House consisted of 93 Peers, 21 of whom were Catholics. Bramhall, a Yorkshire man, who had been brought to Ireland by Wentworth, was the primate and Speaker of the House of Lords. He proposed a resolution which passed the House, that the peers should receive the Sacrament at his hands, a proceeding which would protestantize or exclude all the Catholics. Whenever the “ English interest ” in Ireland experienced a check in their work of spoliation and extirpation, they had recourse to a device that seldom or never failed, which was the alarm that a rebellion was being organized in Ireland. “ Sham plots had proved so fatally successful in promoting the designs of the Republican faction in England some years before ; and in the last year, the Adventurers had found the noise made about meetings of the Irish so very serviceable to them, in procuring a Proclamation for quieting possessions, and preserving them in the enjoyment of those freeholds, which were necessary to enable them to choose members of their own party, and out of which they w^ere in danger of being ejected by law, that it was thought politick to have recourse to one in the present exigence. For this purpose a Committee was appointed to inquire into informations against the Irish, and the danger of the Kingdom from them. Informations of one sort or other will never be wanting, when it is the interest of men in power to encourage them, and they are sure to be received with favour and swallowed without examination, however trifling, ridiculous and improbable.”* This Committee collected very alarming information. It reported as follows : 1. There were numerous assemblies of the Irish in various places, under pretence of * Carte’s Ormonde, V'ol. II., p. 223. IN IRKLAND. 439 frequenting Masses and other pretended religious duties.* 2. They bad found the exercise of a foreign ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion in the kingdom, and the enjoining and observing of extraordinary fasts. 3. A very dangerous symptom which fell under their notice was, “ the endeavours of the Irish to buy serviceable horses/’(!) 4. And there were meetings and con- sultations of the Irish in Dublin, and a concourse of armed men there. These and some other such trumpery charges were embodied in a solemn report and placed before the Lords- Justices, who saw through the sham. But it is not at all certain that they would have seen through it, only they knew the King did not want such reports. However, they thanked the Commissioners for their zeal ; desired that the grounds of the more serious accusations might be communicated to them then, or at some future time. No grounds were produced, and the matter died out with the close of the session.f In the restoration of lauds, or the confirming of possessors in them, innocent papists were to be considered, but only in the last place. Who was an innocent papist ? The “ English interest in Ireland” did not believe, and was determined not to believe that such beings existed, but as they were named in the King’s Declaration, some notice must be taken of them. The Irish who were entitled to the benefits of the Articles of 1648, regarded it as a great injustice, that the restitution of their estates should be postponed, until reprizes were found and assigned to the Adven- turers and soldiers who had got possession of them. They had no confidence in the Commissioners who had been appointed to carry out the Declaration, as most if not all of them, were, by interest, partizans of the Adventurers and soldiers. But most of all did they exclaim against the instructions given to those Commissioners, in which the conditions for innocence were so many, and so strict, that it was next to impossible for any Catholic to obtain a decision in his favour. These conditions are worth noting. They are as follow: — (1.) No man could be restored as an innocent papist, who at or before the Cessation of September 15, 1643, was of the rebel party; (2.) or enjoyed his estate, real or personal, in the rebel quarters, (except the inhabitants of Cork and Youghal, who were driven into those quarters by force) ; (3.) * “ All the foundation for this insinuation was, that there had been, of late, meetings of the poor Irish at Masses, in order to partake of a Jubilee which the Pope had sent them, but the whole kingdom knew they were in no condition to rebel, nor was it likely they should attempt it at a time when they were suing for grace and favours from his Majesty.” Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. II., p. 231. t Ibid., pp. 223-4. 440 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH or who had entered into the Roman Catholic Confederacy before the peace of 1646; or (4.) who had at any time adhered to the Nuncio’s or Clergy’s party, or Papal power, in opposition to the King’s, or who, having been excommunicated for adhering to his Majesty’s authority, had afterwards owned his offence for so doing, and so got free from the excommunication ; or (5.) who derived the title to his estate from any that had died guilty of the aforesaid crimes, or any of them ; or (6.) who pleaded the Articles of the Peace for his estate ; or (7.) who living in the English quarters, held a correspondence with the rebels; or (8.) who before the Peace of 1646, or that of 1648, had sat in any of the Confederate Roman Catholic Assemblies or Councils, or acted upon any Commissions or powers derived from them ; or (9.) who employed agents to treat with any foreign Papal power, for bringing into Ireland foreign forces ; or (10.) who had harassed the country as Tories before the Marquis of Clanrickarde had left the Government. Whoever came under anyone of these denominations was not to he deemed an innocent Papist.* * Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. 11., p. 220. Notes on the above Conditions with regard to innocent and non-innocent, (or nocent) Papists: — (1.) The best commentary on this condition is, that some of the leading men who met Roger O’Moore and others of the Irish on the hill of Crofty, before the Cessation, and joined them in making plans for the raising of a Confederate [rebel] army, of which Viscount Gormanston was appointed General-in-Chief, were, together with him, the Lords Fingal,Trimbleston, Netterville, Sir Richard Barnwell, &c., to be restored to their estates, without any trouble. And more- over, those latter distinguished personages accepted various commands in the said Confederate army, and one of them. Lord Fingal, was restored to his estate before the Declaration for restoring them became law. (2.) This condition is a most atrocious one. Was a free and loyal man to give up his property, because it was within the rebel’s quarters ? and cast himself and his family houseless and homeless on the world ? Some who did so, and had offered to take refuge in Dublin, were, by the Proclamation of the Lords- Justices, warned away from thence on pain of death, and ordered to return to their own houses in the country, where they would he in the rebels’ quarters^ and in their 'power, in spite of themselves. (3.) This is a very insidious condition ; there was hardly a Catholic who belonged to the Confederation at all but had joined it before the Peace of 1G46. (4.) This is quite misleading and incorrect. No person adhered to the Nuncio in opposition to the King’s authority ; they sometimes did so in opposi- tion to Ormonde’s, who was more than once in opposition to the King’s wishes and interests, as may be gathered from the course of this history ; and who proved himself a traitor to his King, in giving up Dublin to the Cromwellians, and who afterwards suflfered a crushing defeat, and lost a fine army at Rath- mines, in his attempt to re-take it. (5.) This requires no commentary. It punishes a man for the supposed faults of a dead ancestor, from whose views and principles he may entirely differ. (6.) It may be assumed that this refers to the Peace of 1648, which was made between Ormonde and the General Assembly after much discussion, and solemnly ratified in the Castle of Kilkenny, on the 17th January, 1649. It made many concessions to the Catholics regarding IX IRELAND. 441 I have given above, as briefly as I could, the conditions laid down for constituting “ an innocent Papist,” as the phrase was. These conditions were but so many traps set for the Catholics in order to deprive them of their just claims. It is said of Napoleon L, that when he was specially anxious to shoot some important officer belonging to the enemy, he ordered five or six cannon to be simultaneously fired at him, believing that though he might escape one or two shots, he could hardly be missed by a whole volley. Yery similar was the condition of a poor Papist with regard to the conditions of innocency ; there were ten of them levelled at him, so that though he might avoid or escape one, two, or three of them, it was piously thought by the holy aspirants to Irish estates that he could not escape them all. But to take another and a broader view, why should the latter have such a tremendous noise made about innocent and non-innocent Papists, when no question whatever was raised about innocent and non- innocent Protestants, Cromwellians or non-Cromwellians? They, as all the world knows, murdered their King, abolished Kingship (as they contemptuously called it), and invested the House of Commons with the Supreme power, removed the King’s effigy from the great seal, and put a representation of that House of Commons in its place ; so that writs no longer ran in the King’s freedom of worship, &c. While the Catholics were continuing to insist on con' cessions, which Ormonde said he had no power to grant, “ The Remonstrance of the Army” of 20th November, 1G48, was brought over from England to Lord Inchiquin, who had it immediately published. This Remonstrance was addressed to the Parliament, calling on it “ to bring the King to Justice” [i.e. to trial and death], “It had a wonderful effect in Ireland it removed all the difficulties which the Catholics, in their zeal for their religion, had thrown in the way of peace. The Assembly receded from their demands in that point, and on December 28th, upon consideration of his Majesty’s present condition, and their own hearty desires of spending their lives and fortunes in maintaining his rights and interests, they resolved unanimously to accept the Marquis of Ormonde’s ‘ answer to their propositions for Religion.’ ” (See Carte’s Ormonde, Vol. II., p. 49.) There was chivalrous loyalty ! but of course the Papists must be punished for it, as it were the right thing to punish them for whatever they did. (7.) If a person residing in the English quarters gave information injurious to the English, it would certainly call for punishment. (8.) The leading Catholics of the Kingdom had done so ; and this clause seems framed for the purpose of robbing all, or nearly all the Catholics who were worth robbing. (9.) A vague condition. “Any foreign papal power” might mean any Catholic power ; however, the c&^'son professing the Popish religioniX * King’s State of the Protestants, &c. Chap. III., Sect. VII. t Quoted in the History of the Church of Ireland, &c. By the Right Rev. Richard Mant, D.D., Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, Vol. II., p. 337. t Ibid, pp. 342, 343. The Italics in the above quotation are mine. — J. O’R. 460 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Bishop Burnet seems to have had an extremely high opinion of the “ State of the Protestants,” &c., by Dr. King, for he says of it in a letter to Sir Robert Southwell, “ that it is not only the best book that hath been written for the service of the govern- ment ; but without any figure, it is worth all the rest put together — and will do more than all our scribblings for settling the minds of the nation.”* It must, however, be borne in mind that Burnet was one of the earliest and most pronounced partizans of William of Orange ; he had lived for a considerable time in Holland in the most confidential intercourse with that prince before his invasion of England, and actually landed at Torbay with him as one of his chaplains.f Other Protestant dignitaries do not seem to have set so much value on Dr. King’s “ State of the Protestants” as Bishop Burnet. For instance, Dr. Mant devotes a great deal of space to the life and episcopate of Dr. King, his name occurring no less than a hundred and sixty times in his history, often with expressions of great admiration for him, but nowhere with even the most casual allusion to his “ State of the Protestants of Ireland under King James’s Government.” The most prominent political character in Ireland during James the Second’s unhappy reign, was Richard Talbot, Duke of Tirconnell. He was born at Carton, near Maynooth (then the family residence of the Talbots). Early in the seventeenth century he was with the army which defended Drogheda against Cromwell, where his life was saved by a Parliamentary officer named Reynolds. He escaped to Flanders, and entered the service of James, then Duke of York. He was an impulsive man, often overbearing in his manner, but had also good qualities, so that his character seems fairly given by a contemporary, who says of him, that “ he was ever ready to speak bold, offensive truths, and to do good offices.’’^ And this is well exemplified by the fact, that he was committed to the Tower for using threatening words to the Duke of Ormonde regarding the Act of Explanation ; but indeed it would be very hard for any Irish Catho- lic to keep his temper, in speaking of that iniquitous Act, and of Ormonde’s guilty connection with it.J He was made a Lieut- General by James, when he came to the throne, and in announc- ing the appointment, the King said apologetically, that “ to miti- gate a little the cruel oppression the Catholics had so long groaned * Harris’s Ware, Bishops, p. 336. t Burnet’s Hist, of his Own Time, temjp. James II. X Quoted in Webb’s Compendium of Irish Biography, Art. Richard Talbot, Duke of Tirconnell. IN lEELAND. 461 under in that kingdom [Ireland], he thought it no injury to others, that they who had tasted so deeply of his sufferings should now, in his prosperity, have a share at least of his pro- tection;” and from other considerations he thought it “necessary to give a commission of Lieutenant-General to Colonel Richard Talbot, a gentleman of an ancient family in that kingdom, a man of good abilities and clear courage, and one who for many years had a true attachment to his Majesty’s person and inte- rest.”* He was made Lord Lieutenant in February, 1687. Archbishop King evidently set himself the task of ruining the character of Tirconnell, He says his usual arts were false- hood, dissimulation and flattery, which he practised with the deepest oaths and curses.^f He was, he says, usually styled “ lying Dick Talbot.” It is a clever, but a very old trick to give the man you wish to damage a bad name, with the design that his character may be inferred from it; but if any impartial investigator will take the trouble to read King’s “ State of the Protestants” by the light of Leslie’s Ansv/er to it, he will be forced to the conclusion, that the offensive epithet above applied to the peer is, to say the least, equally applicable to the prelate. But there is this difference between the so-called lies of Tircon- nell and the misstatements of Dr. King : the former come down to us only by tradition, and chiefly on the authority of Dr. King, Tirconnell’s pronounced enemy, whilst the misstatements of Dr. King himself are to be found in his book, standing against him in thousands of copies of it. I must,” says Leslie, “ do that justice even to the Lord Tyrconnell, that I have heard several Irish Protestants say that the objections they had against him were for his carriage towards them before the beginning of the Revolution, but that afterwards he managed with moderation and prudence, showing more favour to the Protestants than they expected. And that he was against repealing the Act of Settle- ment.”J A well-known Irish Protestant Lady and authoress. Lady Morgan, says of Tirconnell: “Much ill has been written and more believed ; but his history has only been written by the pen of party steeped in gall, and copied servilely from the pages of prejudice by the lame historians of modern times, more anxious * Ulster Journal of ArcluBoIogy, Belfast, 1853-62. Quoted by Mr, Webb loc. cit. t State of the Protestants, &c., p. 84, Dublin, 1713. % Answer to King, p. 73. This statement about the Act of Settlement is very remarkable, as Tirconnell is said by his enemies to have been violently for its repeal. 4G2 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH for authority than for authenticity. Two qualities he possessed in an eminent degree — wit and valour ; and if to gifts so brilliant and so Irish, he joined devotion to his country, and fidelity to the unfortunate and fated family with whose exile he began his life, and with whose ruin he finished it, it cannot be denied that in his character the elements of evil were mixed with much great and striking good.”* * * § The Duke of Berwick assures us that “ he was a man of much worth, although not of a military genius ; that his firmness pre- served Ireland after the invasion of the Prince of Orange ; and that he nobly rejected every offer that had been made to him to submit.”f The compliment of loyalty to the man he had sworn allegiance to is well deserved by Tirconnell ; but Dr. King and his many other enemies refused to see any virtuous quality whatever in him. At any rate, to suffer for the sake of loyalty was no part of their system. They trimmed on every occasion, their whole aim being to stand well with the ruling powers — a system which, although disreputable for its want of principle, gives more chances of success than any other. Dr. King himself was a Tory, as long as Toryism was in the ascendant, and seemed likely to remain so. He as well as others of the same stamp “ preached passive obe- dience in their pulpits in Dublin to that degree as to give offence to some of their Protestant hearers, who thought they stretched it even to flattery.^J But when James’s fortunes began to wane. Dr. King thought it time to prepare for his fall and went to promote it, for whilst yet under his protection, he was more than suspected of sending frequent intelligence by one Sherman to Schomberg, and others in London. This would have been called treason in these days, and the “ bloody-minded tyrant [one of Dr. King’s epithets for James] would have found another remedy than short imprisonment.”§ * Quoted in Webb’s Compendium of Irish Biography, Art. Richard Talbot, Duke of Tirconnell. f Memoires de Mardchal de Berwick, Tome I., 103. X Leslie’s Answer, &c. Preface to the Reader. § See Leslie. Charles Leslie (or Lesley) was second son of Leslie, Bishop of Clogher. “He opposed the claims of theCatholics during James II. ’s sojourn in Ireland, but steadily refused to take the oaths to King William and Queen Mary ; for this he was deprived of his preferments, and he became the virtual head of the non- juring party.” His answer to Dr. King was published anonymously in London in 1692, the MS. of which had been for a considerable time finished, but re- mained unpublished from the difficulty of finding a publisher ; all to whom he applied, fearing the danger of a prosecution had they undertaken the publication. IN IRELAND. 463 Dr. King does not seem to have been brought to trial ; it must therefore be said that he was not convicted of betraying James. But there must have been strong reasons for putting in prison a man who was such a supporter of James’s, and had preached passive obedience for a long time so thoroughly. Moreover, considering the promotion he received from William, that cool, unimpassioned man must have been satisfied that he had done him important services. When the See of Derry became vacant by the death of Walker, at the battle of the Boyne, Dr. King was appointed to it. In 1693, William and Mary made him a regal visitor, together with the Bishops of Meath and Dromore. In a few years after (1703), he was raised to the dignity of Archbishop of Dublin. He filled the office of Lord Justice on four occasions. He ambitioned the primacy, and expected it almost as a matter of course, on the death of Primate Lindsay; but Boulter was appointed, the reason probably being, that his friend, William III. had been long dead, and George the I. reigned (1724), when the vacancy occurred. He was chagrined by the refusal, and by the reason given for it, namely, his age. He evidently did not think the reason a good one, although he was seventy- four at the time. But the loyalty of the whole Protestant party in Ireland was quite as versatile as that of Dr. King — nay, even more so. Thus writes Leslie about it : — “ Before the association in the North of Ireland September, 1688, they prayed for King James. The beginning of March following, they proclaimed the Prince of Orange King, and prayed for him. The 15th day. King James’s army broke their forces at Drommore in the North of Ireland, and reduced all but Derry and Enniskillen. Then they prayed again for King J ames, that God would strengthen him to vanquish and over- come all his enemies. In August following, Schomberg went over with an English army ; then as far as his quarters reached, they returned to pray the same prayer for King William ; the rest of the Protestants praying for victory to King James and for his people ; and yet now tell us, that all the while they meant the He was one of the ablest religious controversialists of his own or any generation. Swift, in his Preface to Burnet’s Introduction to his History of the Reformation, says of him : — “ Without doubt Mr. Lesley is unhappily misled in his politics ; but he has given the world such a proof of his soundness in religion, as many a bishop ought to be proud of It is some mortification to me when I see an avowed non- juror contribute more to the confounding of Popery, than could ever be done by an hundred thousand such introductions.” William III. was a great friend of Swift’s, and often consulted him. Leslie is well-known to most Catho- lics by his “ Case stated between the Church of Rome and the Church of Eng- land,” which called forth the famous Answer of Father R. Manning. 464 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH same thing : four times in one year, praying forwards and back- wards, point blank contradictory to one another.”* There is one explanation, and but one for this unprincipled behaviour. The Protestant party in Ireland were determined, under all circumstances, to usurp the name and position of loyalists, to the exclusion of the Irish Catholics, who, under all circumstances, were to be regarded and treated as rebels. This was a most convenient arrangement for the Protestant party, because rebels have no rights. And to this hour the same system is carried out as far as it can be. Dr. King details at considerable length the seizure of the Pro- testant churches inireland by the Catholics, during! ames’s sojourn here. “Everywhere Protestant churches were taken from them by force, and given to Popish priests by the order or connivance of the King/’ No doubt there is some cause for this complaint, but Dr. King is such a partisan and exaggerator that we cannot accept his statements as wholly correct, and he does not even hint that the Catholics regarded most of the churches as their own, as they had been violently seized by the Protestants not long before. Even on Dr. King’s own showing, James was against the seizure of the churches by the Catholics. He published a proclamation against it, and commanded that a stop should be put to it. Dr. King attributes bad and hypocritical motives to him in issuing this proclamation ; and yet he is obliged to admit that “ the mayors and officers refused to obey his order.” So far from sympathising with the King for his want of power to enforce this order, he seems rather to rejoice at it, saying that he [James] “now found how precariously he reigned in Ireland/’f On this question of the seizure of churches by the Catholics, Leslie replies : — “ Dr. King cannot name one Protestant church in Ire- land that was taken from them [the Protestants], either by King James’s order or connivance, which is so far from the truth that Dr. King himself gives instances to the contrary, and tells how King James did struggle against the popish clergy in behalf of the Protestants, and turned out the Mayor of Wexford, for not obeying his Majesty’s orders in restoring the Protestants the church there which the popish clergy had usurped ; and that he appeared most zealous to have the church restored, and expressed * Answer to King. A great partisan of William’s says substantially the same thing : — “ They published a declaration full of loyalty to King James, before they knew he had retired, praying for long dominion to a Prince who had already resigned it.” — Dalrymple’s Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. I., p. 332. Dublin Ed., 1773. t State of the Protestants, &c.. Chap. III., Sect. XVIII. (especially n. 11.) IN IRELAND. 4G5 himself with more passion than was usual upon that occasion.”* Dr. King s matter-of-course assumption (from which he never swerves) is, that James had no subjects in Ireland but the Pro- testants. In the heading of his second chapter he says : — “ King James designed to destroy the Protestant religion, the liberty and ^property of his subjects in general,” &c. I have seen it stated on good authority that at the time James was in Ireland the proportion of Catholics to Protestants was as six to one of the population ; but the number of Catholics as compared with Episcopalian Protestants (the only genuine Protestants according to Dr. King) was very much greater. Let us, however, take Petty’s estimate. His “Political Anatomy of Ireland” bears date 1672. In that work he says the “ present population of British is as three to eleven.” Taking the British to mean Protestants, and all the rest Catholics, which will be substantially correct, we have in round numbers four Catholics to one Protestant in Ireland, nearly twenty years before James landed here. All these Dr. King ignores as if they did not exist.f In his second chapter he says: — “King James not only designed but attempted, and made considerable progress in our destruction.” Sect. vii. of the same chapter is written to show his destructive proceedings against the liberties of his Protestant subjects. Sect, xiv. is intended “ to show his methods for destroying the Pro- testant religion.” With regard to these charges it may be said, in the first place, that James was an avowed Catholic, and although Dr. King ignored the existence of such beings in Ire- land, he could not expect James to do so. The Protestants (Dr. King amongst them) were in active correspondence with William at the time James arrived in Ireland, and previous to it, many of them maintaining that it was sinful to yield allegi- ance to a popish sovereign. When James became acquainted with this state of things, it is natural to suppose he would be on his guard, yet to the last he seems to have been kind to them, and to have shown a disposition to conciliate them. Leslie says : — “ After King James came in person into Ireland, there was not an act which could be properly called his, that was not all mercy * Leslie’s Answer to King, Preface to the reader. As to Christ’s Church in Dublin it was taken for the King’s own use, and was always reputed as the King’s chapel. — Ibid. t See Political Anatomy, p. 18. It is related of Lord Clonmell, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, that a witness having said, casually, one day in his Court, that he (the witness) was a Roman Catholic, his Lordship indignantly told him that the law did not sup- pose there was any such being in Ireland as a Roman Catholic. Lord Clonmell died only in 1798. How long the fiction was kept up ! 2g 466 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH and goodness to the Protestants ; and as many of them as do retain the least sense of gratitude, acknowledge it, of which you will see several instances in clearing the matters of fact which this author produces.”* In answer to the outcry that James intended to setup Popery in Ireland, Leslie quotes the fourth instruction of King William to his Commissioners in Scotland, dated from Copt Hall, 31st May, 1689 : — “You are,’’ he says, “to pass an Act establishing that church government which is most agreeable to the inclina- tions of the people.” “ By which rule,” says Leslie, “ the Jacobites say that it was as just to set up Popery in Ireland as Presbytery in Scotland ; that it was not more against the one in Ireland than against the other in Scotland,” the Catholics being the overwhelming majority in the former kingdom. It would seem that the Scotch Presbyterians in Ireland were those chiefly who maintained that they should, in conscience, refuse allegiance to James, because he was a Papist, relying on what was known in Scotland as the “ Claim of Right.” That important document opens with these words, “ Whereas King James being a professed Papist, did assume the Royal power,” &c., and the First Claim lays it down that “by the law of this kingdom (Scotland) no Papist can be king or queen of this realm.” But curiously enough, in a still more Sacred Document, the “Confession of Faith,” chapter 23, we read: — “ It is established as the true Christian doctrine in these words, viz. : — Infidelity^ or indifference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him.” So that on this important point, the Claim of Right and the Confession of Faith are sadly at variance. But if the consciences of the Presbyterians were so tender, why did they stifle their prompt- ings and keep praying for James as long as he was successful, and return to their orthodoxy as soon as William’s fortunes were in the ascendant ? Once again I have to quote Dr. King, in praise of that pre- cious treasure, liberty, which is, according to his strange notions of it, to be confined to one-sixth of the people of a nation, whilst the other five-sixths are to be kept in abject slavery. “ To purchase liberty,” says Leslie,t quoting King, “ our author thinks it worth the while to cut the throats of one-half of the nation. These are his words : — ^To lose even half the subjects in a war is more tolerable than the loss of liberty ; since if * Answer, &c., p. 73. t Answer to King, p. 12. IN IRELAND. 4()7 liberty and good laws be preserved, an age or two will repair the loss of subjects and improvements, though they be ever so great; but if liberty be lost it is never to be retrieved, but brings certain and infallible destruction.’* Here is a terrible sentence ! Only half of a nation cut down at a blow ! We must expect some very good reason for this. He says, ‘An age or two will repair the loss of subjects, but if liberty be lost it is never retrieved.’ Now, I thought quite the contrary of this had been true. I thought men might be rescued from prison but not from death. An age or two will repair the loss of lives ; that is, other men will live. But does that retrieve those that are lost ? He may as well say that I regain my liberty if another man gets his liberty. But he says, if liberty be lost it is never to be retrieved. Why, then, would he sacrifice half the nation to retrieve it ? He says it brings certain and infallible destruction. And will he contend against infallible destruction ? I would ask whether he thinks the Irish Protestants did not lose their liberty under King James ? If they did not, his whole work is false. If they did, has not King William retrieved it ? If not, let him answer his thanks-giving sermon. But if King William has retrieved their lost liberty, then his position is false, viz., that if liberty be lost it is never to be retrieved.”! “ Sir, in this slaughter you make of bodies, there will be some souls lost : and an age or two will not repair that.” J After the disastrous battle of the Boyne, James (having been then about six months in Ireland) proceeded to Kinsale, where he took ship for Brest, at which port he landed on the 20th of July, [old style] twenty days after the battle. From that time to his death in 1701, he resided at St. Germain’s, on the bounty of Louis XIV. It should be mentioned to his credit, that his affectionate solicitude for those who remained faithful to him, and had followed him into exile, ceased only with his life. “ He was very charitable, and as there were a great many of his poor, faithful subjects at St. Germain’s, who had lost their fortune to follow him, he was touched with their condition, and retrenched as much as he could to assist them. He used to call from time to time into his cabinet, some of those bash- ful, indigent persons, of all ranks ; to whom he distributed, folded up in small pieces of paper, 5, 10, 15, or 20 pistoles, more or less, according to the merit, the quality, and the * King’s State of the Protestants, &c., p. 4. The context shows that “civil war ” is meant, although the word is not repeated in the above sentence, t Leslie’s Answer to King, p. 33. t Ibid., p. 39. 468 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH exigency of each/’* He gave himself much to religious exercises in his retirement — a course worthy of approval in any Christian, but in a king especially praiseworthy. However, there is no course of life, no matter how good, that may not be contorted and misrepresented. An English writer blames and ridicules the fallen monarch for becoming pious, as if his piety were a crime, or a contemptible weakness. It is strange what effect the words, “ Pope,” “ Popery,” ‘‘ Papist,” &c., produce on the mind of an English Protestant ; staid though he be, and impar-, tial on almost every other subject, the moment one of these words comes before him, it seems to set him on fire as a match does a magazine. You may read dozens of pages in that very useful book, Wade’s Chronology of English History, without once adverting to what the writer’s religion might be. But see how it comes out in the following passage regarding James’s mode of life in his latter years : — ‘'Sunk into the most abject extreme of supersti- tion, he seemed to have relinquished the hope, and almost the wish, to recover his former greatness. He had become a Jesuit, and rarely failed making an annual visit to the Abbey of La Trappe, practising all the austerities enjoined upon that rigid order.”"!* The following is Leslie’s estimate of James’s career and character: — “ I have done, when I have desired the reader not to think that I am insensible of several ill steps, which were made in the administration of affairs, under the government of King James. Nor do I design to lessen them, or make other apology for them, than by doing him this justice, to tell what the Jacobites offer to prove and make it notorious, viz. : that the greatest blots in his government were hit by those who made them, with design to ruin him, and now boast it as their merit, and are rewarded for it. And though Dr. King represents him to be so tyrannical and implacable a temper towards the Pro- testants, yet that it is now publicly known that the fatal measures he took were advised, and often pressed beyond and against his Majesty’s inclinations and opinion by those Pro- testants, whom his unexampled and even faulty clemency had not only pardoned, for all their bitter virulency in opposing his succession, but brought them into his most secret councils, and acted by their advice. This was the burthen of the charge laid against him in the Prince of Orange’s declaration, viz. : ‘Employing such ministers and acting by their advice,’ and though our law says, that the king can do no wrong, and there- * Sir David Nairne, who was with James at St. Germain’s, quoted in O’Calla- ghan’s History of the Irish Brigade, p. 190, note. t Wade’s British History Chronologically arrauged, p. 291. IN IRELAND. 469 fore, that his ministers are only accountable, yet as Mr. Samuel Johnson laid it open, that we have lived to see the king only punished, and those ministers rewarded, and still employed ; and the many grievances complained of in their administration under King James are, by the present discontented, said to be con- tinued and doubled upon us now.”* James was not a free agent in Ireland ; he was in the hands of his Irish supporters, who had remained loyal to his cause, and were now ready to shed their blood for him. Much worse, he was in the hands of secret enemies, to whom he gave his confidence, and who counselled him to do things which they hoped would lead to his ruin. He summoned a Parliament, which met on the 10th of May, 1689, and in which a bill was passed to repeal the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. That justice cried aloud for their repeal there can be no doubt, for they were framed to effect, and did effect, the wholesale plunder of that vast majority of the nation who alone remained faithful to their lawful sovereign. But the expediency of their repeal was quite another thing. All the Acts passed in this Parliament were signed by James, and this is usually put forward as a proof that he approved of the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. But the fact was otherwise ; for he seems to have been always thoroughly opposed to their repeal. In 1685 he sent Lord Clarendon as Lord Lieutenant to Ireland, commanding him to declare on his arrival that he, the King, “ would preserve the Acts of Settlement and Explanation inviolable and not only was this declaration made in Council by Lord Clarendon, but it was given in charge, by him, to the judges, to repeat it from the bench on their respective circuits. Sir Charles Porter was, at the same time, sent over as Chancellor, bearing the same message from the King, with this further addition, that he, the King, would preserve those Acts as Magna OJiarta of Ireland.” Later on Chancellor Fitton made the same announce- ment, and it was often afterwards repeated. Nor does Dr. King’s vulgar and offensive remark that “ the Papists knew it was all colour,” prove that James was insincere. James, as we have just noted, was not a free agent in Ireland, and was obliged to manage as best he could those in whose hands he had put himself, as they were his sole supporters in the kingdom. It was on the faith of their loyalty he had come into the country, and if he did anything to provoke them to desert him, he had none but declared enemies to fall back upon. Such being his position he was obliged to act with extreme * Leslie’s Preface to his Answer to King, 470 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH caution, and of this we have a sample in his speech at the opening of the Parliament of the 10th of May, which was published by his own order. “ I have,” he says, “ always been for liberty of conscience, and against invading any man’s property ; having in my mind the saying of holy writ, Do as you would be done by ; for that is the law and the prophets.” Again, and this is the more important passage, “ I shall most readily consent to the making such good and wholesome laws as may be for the general good of the nation, the improvement of trade, and the relieving such as have been injured by the late Acts of Settlement, as far forth as may be consistent with reason, justice, and the public good of my people'' Eelieving those injured by the Acts, and repealing them are very different things. “ I appeal,” says Leslie, “ to the Earl of Granard, whether Duke Powis did not give him thanks from King James, for the opposition he made in the House of Lords to the passing the Act of Attainder, and the Act for repeal of the Acts of Settlement ; and desired that he and the other Protestant Lords should use tbeir endeavours to obstruct them. To which the Lord Granard answered, that they were too few to effect that ; but if the King would not have them pass, his way was to engage some of the Roman Catholic Lords to stop them. To which the Duke replied with an oath, that the King durst not let them know that he had a mind to have them stopt.”* This is strong evidence of James’s real sentiments about the repeal of those Acts ; but Dr. King and men like him would have no difficulty in putting it aside by saying it was “all colour.”t * Answer to King, p. 99. t The Acts of this Parliament were declared to be Acts of Rebellion and Treason by 7 William III., c, 3. IN IRELAND. 471 CHAPTER XXIII. The Protestantism of the Stuarts never seems to have risen to a standard high enough to satisfy the Protestants of England. James I. persecuted the Catholics in the most satisfactory manner, and robbed them of six counties in Ulster, but he was the son of a mother so Catholic, that they could not rid themselves of the notion that his Protestantism was diluted by the Catholic blood of Mary Stuart. His son Charles I. died like a Christian King and a true Protestant, but he had a Catholic wife, whose sons, it was assumed, must have an increased leaven of Popery in them. This turned out to be true ; for although Charles II. concealed his religious convictions up to the time of his death, he, at the last moment, was received into the Catholic Church. But J ames’s case was the worst of all, for he became a Catholic in his brother’s lifetime, and took no pains to conceal the fact ; whereas had he acted like his brother Charles, he might have lived and died King of England. And it is worthy of remark, that the man on whose grave his enemies have stamped the words “ hypocrite” and “ deceiver” faced any amount of unpopularity and hatred, submitted to a life of suffering and humiliation, and finally lost his crown rather than pretend to desert the religion which he believed to be the true one, although his brother Charles had requested him to do so. When he ascended the throne he began not only to profess, but to act with great toleration. He showed especial favour to the Dissenters, liberating hundreds of them who were in prison for their religion. For this they at first showed much gratitude, but the Episcopalian divines so wrought upon them with incessant sermons, and endless pam- phlets about the dreadfulness of Popery, which, they asserted, James was about to establish as soon as he found himself strong enough, that they joined the Episcopalians against him. The Protestants even in the lifetime of Charles II. held corres- pondence with William, Prince of Orange, but it was carried on with great secrecy, and under various pretences, by his agents in England. The fact is that the Protestants would not be satisfied with a Catholic King, no matter what he did for them, and such being the case, it was the natural course for them to turn to William. He was James’s nephew, being the son of the Princess Mary, eldest daughter of Charles I., and had the still stronger 472 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH claim of being married to James’s eldest surviving daughter, (who was also a Princess Mary), and hence heiress to the Crown of England. She had the advantage of being a Protestant like her husband. William was, moreover, regarded as the head of the Protestant interest in Europe, being almost always at war with Louis the XIY., its most powerful enemy. But the Pro- testants of England were not unanimous as to the terms on which they would invite William to aid them. The Tories were only for compelling J ames to give a parliamentary settlement for the security of the Protestant religion and the laws ; in public the Whigs supported this view in a general way, but in private they went much further, maintaining that “ the time was now ripe, in compliance with the voice of the people, to oblige him to descend from that throne, from which by the voices of two successive Houses of Commons, he had already been excluded.”* It is admitted on all hands that William’s education was much neglected, being chiefly conducted by his grandmother, his father having died before his birth, and his mother when he was but ten years old. He learned two or three modern languages, and as much of the mathematics as was connected with military * Dalrymple, Vol. I., p. 205. When it was known that the Duke of York had become a Catholic, his enemies lost no time in stirring up the passions of the people against him. They cried out that the church was in danger, and called tor securities to protect it. Although the securities they sought affected all Catholics equally, they were chiefly directed against the Duke’s succession to the throne. The first step taken towards his exclusion was the enact- ment of the test, which received the royal assent the 29th of March, 1673. James refused to take it, because as a Catholic he could not do so, and immedi- ately resigned all his employments, one of them being that of high admiral. The next move was to exclude him from the House of Lords and from the councils of his brother, and consequently from the throne. They devised “a more comprehen- sive test,” and moved that whoever refused to take it should be disabled from sitting in Parliament, and prohibited from approaching within five miles of the Court. The phrensy excited in the public mind by the astounding fabrications of Dr. Tonge and Titus Oates caused the bill enacting this test to pass through the House of Commons without opposition. — G. Journals, Oct. 23, 1678. But when sent to the Lords, it made but slow progress there ; they regarding it as an invasion of their^privileges. Its rejection was confidently expected, yet it was finally allowed to pass, with a proviso that its operation should not extend to his royal highness the Duke of York. This was disappointing to his enemies, but its general effect which remained was to exclude all Catholic peers from Parliament ; an exclusion which lasted a hundred and fifty years. —Lords Journals, XIII., 365. Some time after, the Duke of York’s enemies entered on a bolder course ; they prepared a bill to exclude him from the throne. “ The plan of operations was traced by the hand of Shaftesbury, and did honour to the ingenuity of its author.” A new Titus Oates appeared in the person of Dangerfield, to accuse the heir presumptive with being privy to bis imposture of a Presbyterian plot. He was received at the bar of the House of Commons “ with a])probation and listened to with credulity,” although he stood before them “ with the accumu- lated infamy of sixteen convictions on his head ;” and although his testimony IN IRELAND. 473 operations. Such was the whole extent of his acquirements. I find no special mention of his religious training. He was, of course, brought up in the tenets of Calvinism ; such being then the form of belief prevailing in the Netherlands. But William got an educa- tion which cannot be acquired in schools nor from books ; he was trained in adversity ; and the state of his country in his youth compelled him to apply himself to military and diplomatic affairs. Although the leading men in England invited William to come to their assistance, their jealousy of foreign interference in their affairs soon began to show itself. While yet in Holland William had made up his mind to be nothing less than King of England, if he came at all ; and he had got Burnet, who was his close con- fidant there, to give theological lectures to the princess, proving, chiefly from Ephesians v. 22, that it was contrary to the word of God that a wife should be ruler over her husband, which would be the case if she accepted the crown to his exclusion, thereby leaving him in the condition of a subject. Whether Burnet suc- ceeded in convincing the princess or not, the nation, or a large section of it, had views of its own. Some suggested a regent during King James’s lifetime ; others the elevation of the princess herself to the throne ; and on the matter went until William, long suffering though he was, became wearied out with their endless debates. So he at length sent for some of the leading men and told them, (1) that if he were the person they intended for regent, he declined the office, for he would accept no dignity dependent upon the life of another; (2) touching the project of placing the princess alone on the throne, and admitting him to a participation of power through courtesy, he said, after eulogizing her virtues, he thought proper to let them know that he would hold no power dependent upon the will of a woman.” He con- cluded by announcing that if either scheme were adopted he would return to his own country, “ happy in the consciousness” of having done his best to serve them, although without success.f This clever stroke had the effect intended by William, and led to had been rejected by the verdicts of three successive juries. One of his charges against his royal highness was, that he had the intention of getting the King murdered. Before the astonished indignation of the House at this terrible accu- sation had time to subside, Lord Russell rose and moved that it should be the first care of the House “ efifectually to suppress Popery, and prevent a Popish successor.” The resolution was adopted without a dissentient voice.— (7. Jour., Oct. 26. Lord Russell, accompanied by the great body of the Commons, brought the bill up to the Lords, where after a debate of six hours, it was rejected 1t>y sixty-three to thirty voices — See Lingard, Vol. IX., p. 238. Dalrymple, Vol. 1. t “ tbis he delivered in so cold and unconcerned a manner, that those who judged of others by the dispositions they felt in themselves, looked on it as artifice and contrivance.” — Harris’s Life of V\^illiam III., Vol. 2, p. 160. 474 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH a sort of middle course being adopted, by which William and Mary were made joint sovereigns.'^ Five weeks after this James landed at Kinsale whence he proceeded to Dublin. Although the most pressing appeals had been made to William both previous to and after that event, they remained unheeded by him. ‘‘ He would scarcely listen to the accounts brought him from that country [Ireland], or see those who brought them.”t “And instead of taking any soothing measures to gain Tyrconnel, the Lord Lieutenant, to his interests, or vigorous ones to frighten him from asserting those of James, he contented himself with sending over Colonel Hamilton, one of Tyrconnel’s friends, the same man who had attended James in his barge to Rochester, to summon Tyrconnel to submit to the present administration. Hamilton betrayed his trust, and advised him to refuse obedience.’’^ Hamilton was not the first messenger chosen by William to go to Tyrconnel. “ Upon a report that Tyrconnel had proposed in the Council to make the Lords Granard and Mountjoy, both Protestants, the first Lieutenant Genera], the other Major General, and to restore the arms to the Protestants, it was thought fit to summon him, by a letter, to submit to the present administration, and to receive those troops which his Highness designed for the security of Ireland; assuring him that the Roman Catholics there should enjoy the same liberty they had in King Charles II.’s time. Sarsfield, a native of Ireland, was first pitched upon to carry this letter, but he told his Highness that ‘ he was ready to obey his commands, and even to fight against the King of France, but as to his being any ways accessory to deprive his lawful sovereign of one of his kingdoms, he would never do it, unless forced to it.’ Being a brave officer, his answer was not ill received, and Colonel Hamilton, another Irishman, willingly undertook the message.”§ So that each of the two messengers selected by William to bear his letter to Tyrconnel was a friend of that nobleman, and consequently devoted to the cause of James. It is hardly fair to William to accuse him of carelessness or imprudence * The resolution as passed by the Commons was that “ the Prince and Princess of Orange shall be declared King and Queen of England and of all the dominions thereunto belonging.” Next day when this resolution came before it (the Lords) they explained by voting that the “sole and full regal power be in the Prince only, in name of both.” — L. Journals, Feb. 7th, 1688-9. t Dairy mple, Vol. I., p. 331. t Ibid. § The History of King William the Third. London : Printed for A. Roper, at the Black-Boy in Fleet Street, 1703, Vol. I. Interregnum, p. 8. IN IRELAND. 475 in the choice. His habit was to act with careful deliber- ation, as no doubt he did in this instance, and so concluded that a friend would be better received and have more influence with Tyrconnel than a jiolitical opponent. So much in explanation of William’s choice of messenger, but no defence can be made for Hamilton. He should have refused the office, as Sarsfield did, or, having accepted it, acted the part of an honour- able man for William’s interest. William, agreeably to his usual custom, kept to himself his reasons for neglecting Irish affairs ; so they could only be guessed at. Lord Halifax suggested that he neglected Ireland, because he was of opinion that nothing could impel the English so much to a speedy settlement of England, as to leave Ireland in an unsettled condition. Others thought that he encouraged the Irish to rebel, in order to have an opportunity of enriching his followers by their forfeitures. Others, again, found a cause of this neglect in a fear he entertained, that if he made an attempt too soon to reduce Ireland to obedience, he might be unsuccessful, and bring such disgrace on his administration as would imperil his newly acquired position in England, where he felt he had as yet no very firm foothold. Each of these conjectures is plausible enough, and taken together, perhaps they contain the whole truth ; but, in fact, he was too busy in England after his arrival to make sufficient preparations for so important an undertaking as an Irish campaign. He was moreover engaged in a war with France, and was probably more anxious to humble his old antagonist Louis XIY. than to settle the affairs of Ireland. However the matter is to be explained, William found, too late, that his neglect of Irish affairs was a great error. It encouraged the friends of James both in England and Ireland to dispute his title, and afforded time to Tyrconnel to get an army to- gether. He at length resolved to enter upon the task of reducing Ire- land with a force adequate to the undertaking. “ But he was afraid to send the late King’s army to fight against him ; and therefore ordered twenty-three new regiments to be raised. The levies were completed in six weeks : for England, by a long peace, was filled with men impatient for war, because they loved its glories and knew not its miseries. These regiments, with two Dutch battalions, and four of French refugees, were destined for the service ; and they were to be joined in Ireland by the Innis- killiners, together with such regiments as could be spared from Scotland, because both of those bodies of men had been tried against their late master ; and by six thousand hired Danes, because these knew no master except him who paid them. 476 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Suspicion of his own subjects made William give the direction of the expedition also to foreigners. He appointed Marshal Schomberg, then eighty years of age, to be the first, and Count Solmes the second, in command. The King honoured Schomberg with a Dukedom and the Garter, and the House of Commons voted him a present of £100,000.”* There was much delay in getting the army into Ireland. Schomberg, who remained twenty days in Chester, waiting for the forces intended for Ireland to assemble there, lost patience at last, and sailed with those he had. He arrived in the Bay of Carrickfergus, on the 12th of August (O.S.), 1689, with ten thousand men, some of whom were cavalry, and with only a part of his artillery. The remainder was to follow. “ He resolved by some exploit of consequence, but not of danger, to give reputa- tion to his arms, a thing which he knew he needed, to encourage new troops, and to intimidate a new foe ; and therefore about a week after his landing, he laid siege to Carrickfergus, and took it in four days, with a garrison of 2,500 men in it.”t The town was delivered up on Articles highly honourable to the garrison : they were to march out ‘‘ with flying colours, arms, lighted matches, and their own baggage ; and be conducted by a squadron of horse to the nearest garrison of the enemy [i.e, a garrison belonging to the Irish army] ; and that there should be no crowding or confusion as they marched out.” These Articles were flagrantly violated. Story, like a true partisan, makes little or no account of the matter; all he says is, that “ the Duke himself had much ado to protect them from the violence of the country people.”J Absurd ! Could not English soldiers protect them from “ country people ”? or, if permitted, were they not able to protect themselves, having marched out with their arms ? The true account of this transaction is to be sought for else- where than with Mr. George Story, the military Chaplain. * Dalrymple, Vol. I., pp. 431-2. Schomberg was born at Schonburg Castle, on the Rhine, between Coblentz and Bingen. Like many of the great captains of his time, he was a soldier of fortune. He commenced his military career during the Thirty Years’ War, in the service of Sweden. He next entered the Dutch army; after which he served France with much distinction, from 1650 to 1686, and was created a Marshal. After the revocation of the edict of Nantz, he entered the Portuguese service ; then that of the Elector of Brandenburg ; lastly, he joined the Prince of Orange, whenpreparing his expedition to England. Having, for more than half a century, escaped death in every form on nearly every battlefield of Europe, he at length met it on the banks of ‘ ‘ the Boyne’s ill-fated river where he was one of the first to fall, 1st July (O.S.) 1690. t Dalrymple, Vol. I., p. 433. X Story, Vol. II., pp. 7 and 8. IN IRELAND. 477 The journal of the most remarkable transactions in this war, published at that juncture, thus describes the breach of Articles at Carrickfergus : — “ The Irish in that town, when reduced to one barrel of powder only, made soldier-like terms ; marching out with their arms, colours flying, ball in mouth, and other usual ceremonies in war ; to be attended by a convoy until they were within three miles of Newry. Yet the Articles signed by Schomberg himself, were nevertheless barbarously violated by the soldiers ; who, without regard to age, or sex, or quality, disarmed and stripped the towns-people, forcing even women to run the gauntlet stark naked.”* Macpherson’s account is substantially the same but fuller. “ Schomberg,” he says, “invested Carrickfergus; he summoned the garrison in vain ; he opened four batteries against the place ; he attacked it with the guns of the fleet ; one thousand bombs were thrown into the town ; the houses were laid in ashes. The garrison, having expended their powder to the last barrel, marched out on the ninth day with all the honours of war. But the soldiers broke the capitulation ; they disarmed and stripped the inhabi- tants, without any regard to sex or quality ; even women stark naked were whipt publicly between the lines.”t From Carrickfergus Schomberg led his army to Dundalk, and pitched his camp a mile north of the town, in low marshy ground. The journey from Carrickfergus lasted six days, during which the raw English levies suffered much, because, in order to avoid the Irish cavalry they were marched chiefly through bogs, just then rendered more difficult to be traversed, as the rainy season had set in. They found the corn reaped on their route, but rotting on the ground ; the cattle had been driven away, or were here and there lying slaughtered and putrid. All the houses were deserted, over the doors or in the thatch of which crucifixes were placed, in almost every instance. No other furniture was left.J Schomberg entrenched himself as soon as possible at Dundalk, where the Irish army offered him battle several times, and even endeavoured to provoke or compel him to fight, but the wary old Marshal, knowing their army out- numbered his and was in better condition, refused to quit his quarters, which from their unhealthy situation soon became more like a vast hospital than a camp. After some time his chief care was to conceal the fearful mortality of his men from those who were still able for duty. It was computed that of the * Curry’s Civil Wars, Vol. II., p. 193, note. t Ibid. From Macpherson’s History of Great Britain, Vol. I., p. 570. X Story jpassfw. Dalrymple, Vol. 1., pp. 435 et seq. 478 TPIE BATTLE OF THE FAITH 15,000 who at different times entered the camp, 8,000 died in it, and that the Irish losses were not much less.* * * § Whilst Schomberg was doing but little to advance William’s cause in Ireland, William himself was teased and thwarted by the conflicting interests of the two great political parties in England. He became unpopular. He had none of the qualities which secure popularity. He scarcely appeared in public ; he was difficult of approach, and was continually employed in his Cabinet with his ministers. “ He thought, or pretended to think, that the smoke of London disagreed with him, and retired to Hampton Court ; which provoked the citizens, who said that he retired to that place, because it was built on a dead flat, and upon the hanks of water, stagnating to appearance, and hence resembled a palace in Holland.”t The populace received their impressions, as they commonly do, from their senses. They remarked the King’s small stature, the weak texture of his body, and, taking an advantage of a peculiarity in his features, called him, in derision, ‘ hook-nose.’”J Warned of his growing dislike, he made what was to him a great efiPort. He went to the races at Newmarket, where he mingled with all sorts of people; he bore the tedium of a University reception ; went to a city feast, and was made a tradesman of London at his own request and the proud soldier “ pretended to derive honour from being chosen master of the grocers’ company.”^ But it would not do. Everybody could see the awkwardness and repugnance with which he got through his part of the business on those occasions. He seemed as out of place as a flsh does out of water, or the Lord Mayor’s champion in armour. Then the two great political parties did fierce battle over him ; each determined to make him its own. He was at his wit’s end. In his perplexity he fell back upon a device, which stood him in good stead on a previous occasion ; so he declared he would go back to Holland and leave the queen to govern a people, whom he found himself unable to please or to manage. He communicated this project, with tears, to Lord Caermarthen, Lord Shrewsbury, and a few others, in hopes that from their own danger, or from tenderness to him, they might soften the mutual animosities of the parties they conducted. With tears, such as statesmen shed, they dissuaded him.”(| The Tories won. He took them into his confidence; so that “in the space of little * Ibid. Some estimated Schomberg’s losses by sickness at 10,000. fDalrymple, Vol. I., p. 443. X Ibid., p. 444. § Ibid., pp. 462-3. II Ibid., p. 462. IN IRELA.ND. 479 more than a year after William was upon the throne, he dis- missed that Parliament, and broke with that party which had placed him upon it.”* Having made his preparations for coming to Ireland, he dis- solved the Parliament, left Kensington on the 4th of June, 1690, sailed from Highlake on the 12th, accompanied by 300 transports, with six ships of war to guard them, and landed on the evening of the 14th at Carrickfergus. The army which he brought over is set down roundly at 36,000 men, more than one-half of whom were foreigners, William being still afraid to trust Englishmen to fight against James, as many of them still regarded the latter as their lawful sovereign .*1* J ames fell back upon the Boy ne, cautiously followed by William, who arrived at Oldbridge on Monday, the 30th of June. By the next day the battle was lost and won. As soon as William’s victory was known in London, the Queen, who kept up an active correspondence with her husband, wrote him a long letter of congratulation, which contains one very remarkable passage. Feeling that he was now master of the situation, and in a position to direct and rule in Ireland, she writes: — “I must put you in mind of one thing, believing it now the season, which is, that you would take care of the Church of Ireland. Everybody agrees that it is the worst in Christendom.’’^ The day after the battle, William’s forces rested on their arms at Duleek. On the 3rd news reached him that Dublin had been evacuated, and he at once sent the Duke of Ormonde to occupy it. On the 5th “our army,” says Story, ‘‘marched to Finglass, a little village two miles to the north-west of Dublin, where we lay encamped for several days.” Here, according to our author, William reviewed his army with much care, and found it to consist of the old number — 36,000 — ^just as before the battle ; so that according to Story it was not reduced even by one at the Boyne (!) On the 6th, being Sunday, William rode to St. Patrick’s Cathedral to return thanks to God for his victory. He was received by the Bishops of Meath and Limerick. Dr. King preached on the 7th. William signed a Declaration, wherein he promised “ protection to all poor labourers, common soldiers, country-farmers, plow-men and cottiers ; as also to all citizens, tradesmen, townsmen, and artificers, who either remained at home, or having fled from their dwellings, should return by the * Ibid., p. 466. t “ June 27th,” “ Our whole army joined at Dundalk, making in all about thirty-six thousand, though the world called us at least a third more.” — Story, Vol. IL, p. 19. I Dalrymple, Vol. III., p. 153. 480 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH first of August followiug,” &c., leaving all others to the event of war, unless by great and manifest demonstrations they would convince his Majesty that they deserved his mercy, which he promised never to refuse to those who were truly penitent* This was substantially a repetition of Cromwell’s Declaration on his arrival in Dublin. Both, doubtless, aimed at the same thing — to give confidence to those who could aid them by their work and bring in provisions. The wealthy were left without protec- tion because, we may suppose, they were the possessors of property which later on, was to be confiscated to reward the followers, in the one case, of Oliver, and of William, in the other. The Irish officers justly complained that this Declaration was too narrow ; that it excluded them from any advantage under it ; and that they were obliged afterwards to stick together, such being their only safety. Later some alterations were made in the Declaration, but they proved equally unsatisfactory. On the 9th, William moved southwards, and encamped at the village of Crumlin, two miles south-west of Dublin, having evi- dently divided the city. We next find him at Castledermot, a town in the extreme south of the Co. Kildare, near Carlow, whence he sent Brigadier Eppinger to secure Wexford. On his arrival, he found it deserted by the garrison. On the 19th William dined at Kilkenny Castle, which had been spared by Count Lauzun with all its goods and furniture. He moved forward with but little delay. Carrick, Waterford, and the almost impregnable fort of Duncannon, were summoned and surrendered to the conqueror without a blow.f On the 8th of August he was joined by Douglas, who had been * Story, Vol. II., p. 27. t Whilst Williara was pursuing his conquests in Ireland, the news of the naval battle off Beachy Head reached him, in which the combined English and Dutch fleets suffered a severe defeat from the French. The people in England were greatly alarmed by the event, and the ministers sent pressing letters to the King to return. He shared their alarm ; resolved to hasten back, and retraced his steps as far as Chapelizod, a suburb only a short distance west of Dublin, with that intention. Here a second despatch reached him, announcing that the loss at sea was not so great as at first reported, so he returned to the army then encamped near Cashel. The truth is, that the loss of the allied fleet was very great, but the French Admiral not having followed up his victory (for which he was censured by Louis XIV.), no immediate danger was apprehended, William remained three days at Chapelizod, where he was chiefly occupied in hearing complaints against some of his officers, especially against Lieut. -Greneral Douglas, and Colonel Trelawney’s regiment, then in Dublin. He also heard petitions regarding the violation of Protections. While here he published a pro- clamation, dated July 31st, “ commanding all the Papists to deliver up their arms, and those who did not were to be looked on as rebels and traitors, and abandoned to the discretion of the soldiers.” — Story, Vol. 111. IN IRELAND. 481 repulsed at Athlone, and on the 9th, William, thus reinforced, appeared before Limerick on the Clare side. He summoned the city to surrender, but a reply refusing to do so was sent back to him by Monsieur Boisseleau, the Duke of Berwick, Sarsfield, and the other commanders. On receipt of this answer, William commenced active prepara- tions for his attack. On the evening of the day on which it was received, a strong party of dragoons was sent to examine the pass of Armaghheg, three miles above the city, and on the next day, Sunday, August 10th, he despatched eight squadrons of horse and dragoons, commanded by Lieutenant-General Ginkle, and three regiments of foot under Major-General Kirk, in all 5,000, to that pass. The river was crossed without opposition, being at the time unusually low, though rapid and dangerous. The King himself soon appeared at the place and arranged that three regiments should encamp beyond the river, and two at the point they had arrived at. So that the pass was held at both sides. The Irish offered no opposition to these movements, but sedulously applied themselves to the strengthening of their defences. The “ heavy guns, ammunition, ten boats, a great store of provisions, and abundance of other things” were on their way from Dublin under the care of two troops of [Yilliers’] horse. Next morning, the 11th, a country gentleman named Manus O’Brien arrived at the English camp, and gave notice that Sarsfield had passed the river with a body of horse during the night, and must have been on some extraordinary design. Of this design O’Brien seems to have been ignorant, but it was to attack the party convoying the supplies for the siege. Story says the Irish got information about this matter from a French gunner, who had deserted to them. Sarsfield and his party crossed the Shannon at Killaloe, 12 miles above Limerick, taking with them all the best horse and dragoons that were in the town.* It was on Sunday night, the 10th of August, that he started on his perilous enterprise. He proceeded along the right bank of the river until he reached O’Brien’s bridge (an old pass on the river), which he found guarded by a party of William’s soldiers. He could not therefore get over that way without fighting and defeating them. Even this would have been ruinous to his design, . secrecy being essential to its success. At Ballycorney he is said to have ta,ken for guide a young man named Cecil, who was well acquainted with the locality Having safely and unobserved passed to the Tipperary side of the * Story, Vol. I., p. 119. The Duke of Berwick in his Memoirs says they numbered 600, — See Lenihan’s Limerick, p. 233, note. 2 H 482 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Shannon, he made his way across the country between Ballina and Boher. Next morning vedettes were sent out to watch the coming of the ammunition train, then on its way from Cashel, and supposed to be no great distance off. In due time it was sighted, and information was obtained that it was to encamp for the night near the hill of Ballyneety, a remarkable conical elevation which can be seen from a great distance. Next night Sarsfield moved towards the hill, and halted at some distance from it. About midnight he crept cautiously upon the sleeping convoy. When the first sentinel challenged and demanded the pass- word, it was given — “ Sarsfield.” Proceeding further into the encamp- ment, on a second sentinel demanding the word, the response was given apparently by Sarsfield himself, — “ Sarsfield is the A voRb, AND Sarsfield is the man.”* * * § The sentinel was imme- diately shot down, the firing of a shot being the signal agreed upon for the whole body of the Irish to advance. They did so, and at once fell upon the half- awakened and astonished William- ites, making short work of them. When the slaughter was done, Sarsfield had their cannon loaded to their muzzles, sunk into the ground and discharged, which gave such a tremendous report, that it was distinctly heard in the English camp, which was 14 or 15 miles distant.! “ The Irish took no prisoners ; only a lieute- nant of Colonel Earl’s, being sick in a house hard-by, was stript and brought to Sarsfield, who used him very civilly, telling him if he had not succeeded in that enterprise, he had then gone for France.”! Sarsfield returned to his quarters without the loss of a single man !§ In spite of the disaster at Ballyneety, William proceeded with * Mr. Lenihan gives it, “Sarsfield is the /?as5.word,” &c. This famous reply was known far and wide through Ireland down to our own times, and no doubt lives still in tradition, but I never heard the word “_pa55” introduced into it before, and it certainly injures the antithesis. The discovery of the watchword is thus accounted for by Mr. Lenihan : — “One of Sarsfield’s troopers, whose horse got lame, fell into the rere of his party : he met the wife of one of William’s soldiers who had remained behind the Williamites on their march, and taking compassion on her, he enabled her to proceed on her journey. By this means the trooper obtained the watchword of the English.” — History of Limerick, p. 232. How strange that the watchword should be “ Sarsfield !” t Story says seven miles, but this is a mistake, as Ballyneety, according to Mr. Lenihan, is about 14 miles from Limerick, and William’s camp was only “ a little mile from the town.” — History of King William HI., Vol. 2, p. 209. X Ibid. § Captain Parke’s Memoirs, p. 23. Sarsfield was accompanied on this service by a famous Rapparee, known as “ Galloping Hogan,” “ who knew every pass and defile — was familiar with every track and roadway — with every ford and bog — and in a critical juncture like the present, was the best man that could be obtained to give effectual assistance to the grand exploit.” — Lenihan, p. 231. IN IRELAND. 483 the siege, resolving to make a supreme effort. The preparatory- works for storming the place were pushed forward with increased energy. On the 17tb, five days after he had lost his guns and ammunition train, some pieces of heavy ordnance arrived to him from Waterford, and the trenches were opened. New guns were planted at certain points, a fort was taken from the besieged, who, on their side, made a sally which inflicted much damage on the besiegers. Additional batteries were raised, and shells and red- hot balls were incessantly poured into the city. At length on the 27th, a practicable breach, twelve yards wide, was made near St. John’s gate, and at half-past three the same day, the city was stormed by 10,000 picked soldiers.* The fighting at the breach was of the fiercest kind. After sometime, says Story, the Irish gave way, and began to throw down their arms and run into the city. The English, he continues, who pursued them were not supported and got fearfully cut up within : some were shot, some taken, and the rest came out again, but very few without being wounded.”*|- This repulse of the besiegers gave new courage to the Irish, so they returned to the breach, and poured bullets, stones, bottles, and every kind of missile they could find, upon the besiegers, with deadly effect. TheBrandenhurgh regiment composed of William’s own countrymen, was almost annihilated in an attempt to take the Black Battery. “ When the work was at the hottest,” writes Story, “ the Brandenburgh regiment (who behaved themselves very well) were got upon the Black Battery, where the enemies’ powder happened to take fire, and blew up a great many of them, the men, faggots, stones, and what not, flying into the air with a most terrible noise.”J But Lenihan denies it was^an accident, and asserts that they were blown up by a mine at the battery, which was fired while the Branden- burghers were crowding thickest about it.§ “After about three hours it was judged safest to return to their trenches.” The English historians say their ammunition was spent, and make various other excuses for the defeat of William’s attack. But the best answer to all this is, that he did not attempt another ; so far from it, he at once, began preparations to get away with his broken legions. On the 30th of August, the heavy baggage and cannon were sent off, and the next day the army decamped, and marched towards Clonmel. The King having, on the 4th of September, constituted the Lord Sydney, Sir Charles Porter, and Lenihan, p. 247. t Story, Part I., p. 129. X Impartial History, &c., Part I., p. 129. § History of Limerick, p. 245. 484 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Thomas Coningsby, Lords Justices of Ireland, and committed the care of the army to Count Solmes, who soon afterwards resigned it to Lieut. -General Ginkle, embarked at D uncannon, with Prince George of Denmark, and other persons of distinction ; he arrived the next day in King’s-road near Bristol, and on the 9th at Windsor, where he was received by the Queen with that joy, which none but his own could equal.’’"^ So that after his defeat at Limerick, William hurried out of Ireland with the expedition of one who was glad to get away.j Immediately after their defeat at Limerick the English forces went into winter quarters, chiefly in the South ; Douglas however went northwards for his quarters. Cork was in the hands of the Irish. It was strengthened by them, aided by the French, but the works were very extensive, and required a large force to defend them, whereas the garrison consisted of only 4,000 men ; besides there was a station, which, if occupied, would make the works of little avail.” Marlborough knew this station and had other valuable information about the defences of the city. Moreover, having heard that the French fleet was laid up for the season, he pressed the Queen and Council to trust him with 5,000 of the * Harris’s Life of William III., Vol. 3, p. 115. + The following ghastly account is given of an occurrence said to have hap- pened at the close of the siege : — “ De Burgho relates that William, in his haste to decamp, left a vast number of men sick and disabled in hospital. He w'as asked by such of the generals as dared to approach him, what was to be done with the sick and wounded. De Burgho gives the reply — with fury in his eyes, and rage consuming him, roaring out, he said, ‘ Let them he hurnecV — ‘ let them be set fire to and forthwith the hospital was enveloped in flames.” — Lenihan’s History of Limerick, p. 249. It is only just to the character of William to give the full passage from De Burgho. The following is a translation of it : — ‘ ‘ The Prince of Orange, elated with victory after having taken many strong- holds, namely, Dublin, Kilkenny, Wexford, Clonmel, and Waterford, besieged, in person, the strongly fortified city of Limerick, but failed in his attempt to take it. Having remained nearly a month before it, and when a great number of his soldiers had been slain, he was compelled to raise the siege and retire. The haughty prince was so fired with anger, that when, on leaving the place, he was asked what was to be done with the soldiers who were wounded and sick, he answered in a fury, * Burn them ^’’ — a thing;, we may fairly believe, he by no means intended ; yet the officers, fearing his indignation, took care to follow his command to the very letter, although it far surpassed all Scythian cruelty. Hence (horrible to relate) a thousand men at least, perfectly innocent, were delivered to be burned alive .” — Hibernia Dominicana, p. 144. Ohs . — Opposite accounts are given with regard to a second attempt to take Limerick, e.g., “Next day the soldiers were in hopes that his Majesty would give orders for a second attack, and seemed resolved to have the town or lose all thejh’ lives.” — Story, Part II., p. 39. “ Theodore (William) resolving to renew the assault next day, could not per- suade his men to advance^ though he offered to lead them in person. Whereupon, all in a rage, he left the camp .” — Macarioe Excidiwn, p. 50. Published by the Camden Society. IN IE ELAND. 485 troops who were then lying idle in England, and pawned his reputation, that he would take both Cork and Kinsale before winter. They yielded to that confidence of success which in great geniuses is irresistible ; and he arrived at Cork upon the 21st of September. The Duke of Wirtemburg with an army of 4,000, encamped at the north side of the city, so that Cork found itself invested by 9,000 men and the fleet. It held out for a few days, and then surrendered to superior forces. As soon as it was taken, the sailors and “many loose persons” entered through the breach, and plundered many houses, “ especially of Papists.” “ In the afternoon all Papists were ordered by proclamation on pain of death to deliver up their arms.” The day after the taking of Cork, Marlborough sent Brigadier Villiers to summon Kinsale. This was the 29th (O.S.) September. Marlborough followed with his army, and on the 5th of October, the governor beat a parley; the garrison, 1,200 or 1,500 in number, marched out with bag and baggage, and they were conducted to Limerick by a party of English horse.* “ Marlborough returned to London upon the 28th of Octoberj vain, that, like a soldier, he had kept his word ; but secretly indignant, that it was not oftener put to the test. The nation received him with acclamations, observing with a mixture of honest pride and malignant jealousy, that an English officer had done more in a mouth, than all the King’s foreign generals had done in two campaigns.”! * Story, Part II., p. 44. Dalrymple, Vol. I., p. 504. t Dalrymple, Vol. I., p. 505. 486 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH CHAPTER XXTV, When the time arrived for opening the campaign of 1691, the English turned their attention to Athlone, being a place of strength and importance, then held by the Irish. On the 19th of June, the army under Ginkle, numbering about 18,000 men, appeared before that town, and on the 20th their batteries began to play on a bastion not far from what was known as the Duftin gate. On the same day the English town which had but poor defences, was taken by storm ; after this, operations were immediately commenced against the Irish town, which was much better fortified than the former. The besiegers at once began to concentrate all their skill and efforts at the bridge which spanned the Shannon, and was the only passage into the Irish town. At its port on the 21st, a battery was erected for five twenty-four pounders, and a floor made for six mortars. On the 24th two more batteries were planted near the bridge, one above and one below it. The Irish on their side, proceeded with such defences as they hoped would make it impossible for the besiegers to pass over, so that for the moment, the bridge was literally the bone of con- tention between the contending forces. The expenditure of ammunition on the English side was immense, but thirty waggons laden with powder having arrived at the camp, they were inspired with renewed energy, and opened fire from seven batteries, on the works of the Irish, which they, on their side, persevered in repairing with much loss of life, but with unflagging courage. Meantime a lieutenant of horse with a party was sent to Lanes- borough, where a ford, as the general was informed, would be found, that could be passed safely and unawares. The lieutenant had orders to return without delay as soon as he had found the ford. This he failed to do, for seeing a prey of cattle at some distance he could not resist the temptation of securing them, and in attempting to do so he was observed by some of the Irish, who, perceiving that he had found the ford, reported the same. Strong works were quickly constructed to defend it ; so the design came to nothing. The lieutenant paid dearly for his cupidity, for IN IRELAND. 487 he was tried and suffered for it.* The hope of passing [the ford towards Lanesborough having been frustrated, the commanders made up their mind that there was nothing for it, but to force their way across the bridge in spite of the losses it was sure to entail. All the batteries played on the works of the Irish incessantly through the night of the 26th, which enabled the English to possess themselves of the bridge, except one broken arch at the Irish or Connaught side. On the night of the 26th the English “ wrought very hard on the last arch in the enemies' possession.” “ But,” adds Story, “ what we got here was inch by inch as it were, the enemy sticking very close to it, though great numbers of them were slain by our guns ; and this service cost us great store of ammunition.”t On the evening of the 27th the English with their grenades burned the breastworks the Irish had erected at their side of the broken arch, and continued to work incessantly through the night, in order to get possession of it. On the morning of the 28 th, they laid their beams across it, and succeeded in placing some planks on the beams, which the Irish perceiving, detached a sergeant and ten men out of Maxwell's regiment, clad in armour, who crossed their own works to destroy those of the English : they were all killed. “ And yet this did not discourage as many more from setting about the same piece of service, and they effected it by throwing down our planks and beams, maugre all our firing and skill, though they all lost their lives as testimonies of their valour, except two, who escaped amongst all the fire and smoke.”J The famous broken arch still yawned between the belligerents, and barred the English from crossing. Thus repeat- edly driven back they held a council of war which resulted in a determination to attempt the passage in three different places : (1) by the bridge, on which they had begun the construction of a close gallery; (2) by floats and pontoons; (3) by the ford below the bridge, where the horse were also to pass and second the foot. The attack was to be conducted by Major-General Mackey. This plan, so formidable in appearance, was not even attempted, because the Irish by throwing their hand grenades * “ Such are the powerful charms of black cattle to some sorts of people, that the lieutenant espying a prey some distance from him, on the other side, must needs be scampering after them ; by which means our design was discovered.” — Story, Part II., p. 100. t Story, Part II., p. 102. t Ibid. General Mackey’s MS. Memoirs, quoted by Dalrymple. This name is spelled as above by Story, but McKay, by Dalrymple. The latter is perhaps the more correct, as Dalrymple, like the general, was a Scotchman ; yet it is signed Maccay to the Articles of Limerick, in the copy of those Articles printed “by Authority” in 1692. 488 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH across the broken arch set the close gallery on fire, and burned a great part of it. The English were at their wit’s end. Another council of war was called, and the question was discussed whether or not they could remain any longer before Athlone, seeing that forage for miles round was exhausted. They resolved to make one trial more, and it succeeded. At this juncture two officers having deserted from the Irish, swam the river, and assured the English commander, that now was his time to make another attempt, for the Irish felt so secure of their last success, they would be taken unawares. The ford mentioned above, having been examined some days previously by three Danes, was pro- nounced passible. To reach the Connaught side of the river was by its means now their sole remaining hope ; so they nerved themselves for the perilous attempt.* Two thousand picked men were told off for the service. Sixty were clad in armour, who under command of Captain Sandys took the river, twenty abreast; the English meantime firing furiously on the works of the Irish, to distract their attention from the enterprise. The 60 armed men gained the Connaught bank, and were soon followed by others; the boats and pontoons were got into requi- sition, the broken arch was planked over, the men poured into the Irish town by the three ways, and had possession of it in half an hour. The Irish, as the deserters had foretold, were taken by surprise. All their best troops had been sent to the camp to take some rest after their great fatigues; and three of the most indifferent regiments in the Irish army were only then upon guard ;”f in fact so poor an opinion had the general of them, that they had not been previously entrusted with the defence of the town at all, but after the severe repulse the English had suffered, he felt assured that no danger was to be feared, until the veterans, who had defended the town so bravely, would be rested. The Irish sent a hurried message to St. Ruth to come to their assistance. He is said to have ridiculed the idea of the English making an attempt to cross the river, and he so near with a good army ; he learned his mistake too late. An effort was made to retake the town, but without success.^ The Irish, on losing Athlone, fell back westwards and took up a strong position at Aughrim. The English followed, and in the face of great difficulties won the decisive battle which has * “ For the greater encouragement of the soldiers the General distributed a sum of guineas amongst them, knowing the powerful influence of gold.” These are Story’s words. I suppose they mean that each soldier got a guinea. t Story, Part IL, p. 106. f General Mackey’s MS. Memoirs. IN IRELAND. 489 been named from that place. The death of St. Ruth, which occurred about sunset, so discouraged his troops, that it may be said to have terminated the battle, “ which up to that,” Story says, “ was fought with much courage,” and was in favour of the Irish. Sarsfield was second in command, but when St. Ruth fell, he was puzzled what to do, because as he and St. Ruth were not on friendly terms, the plan of battle was not communi- cated to him. This, and the confusion caused by the personal guard of St. Ruth rushing back with his dead body, which to many of the troops seemed to be a retreat, changed the fortune of the day. The English became the victors ; they pursued the vanquished four miles, "‘but,” says Dalrymple, “disgraced all the glories of the day by giving no quarter.”* St. Ruth was a brave soldier and a good general. He has been much blamed for the way in which he managed his Irish campaign, but like nearly every one who has not succeeded, he has been too much blamed. The censures cast upon him are chiefly from English sources, and must, therefore, be accepted with great modification, for, after the Irish, the French come in for the greatest amount of English hatred. His chief fault was his want of the entente cordiale towards Sarsfield. Whether it was pride, jealousy, or overweening conceit, this was inexcusable. Sarsfield was next to himself in command, and was therefore entitled to be confided in and consulted ; but when we consider the soldier Sarsfield was, his knowledge of the country and its people, not to have consulted him, not to have trusted him, not to have utilized his great qualities, was an unpardonable blunder, and was naturally followed by ruinous defeat. His not having hastened to the succour of Athlone, on receipt of the urgent message from the garrison, which he knew to be a weak one, was another blunder, but it is more capable of being excused than the former. It happened chiefly through want of that knowledge which Sarsfield could have given him, and which, in an angry mood, he did give him, namely, the dogged perseverance of which English soldiers were capable. When St. Ruth came to Ireland, he found the force he had been sent to lead too small for aggressive warfare ; it was, besides, an undisciplined force, ill clad, ill fed, ill paid. So he prudently stood on the defensive, but mortified at the loss of Athlone, he changed his mind, and resolved to stake the result of the campaign on a single battle, * Memoirs, Vol. I., p. 5S9. Authorities differ as to the relative numbers of the opposing armies, but it is probable the Irish force was the lesser, besides that they were ill provided, especially with artillery, while the English had everything in abundance. 490 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH which he did at Aughrim. No one has ever ventured to ques- tion his generalship in his choice of Aughrim for his battle ground, nor the disposition of his forces there ; but the world regards it as a great fault to lose : St. Kuth lost, and as a matter of course he is loaded with censure. The man who wins is scarcely ever blamed ; everything is forgotten in the blaze of victory, which disarms and paralyses the critic, so that if he points out faults he has no sympathisers ; one word — “ Victory” — is an all-sufficient reply to him. It is no rash conjecture, that, had St. Ruth lived, he would, in all probability, have won the battle. Had this been so, he might have marched triumphantly to the gates of Dublin, for “ it was known that De Ginkle had not made proper securities behind him for retreat.”* Had St. Ruth won, and marched upon Dublin, words could not be found strong enough by the English to denounce De Ginkle’s incapa- city, and instead of himself and his descendants being the richly endowed pensioners of England for two centuries, the grave of his reputation would have been dug near the place whence he derived his pension and his title.j* The battle of Aughrim was fought on the 12th July (O.S.), and one week afterwards the English army appeared before Galway, which contained a garrison of something over 2,000 men, whose main reliance was on the promised aid of Balldearg O’Donnell, a chief about whom prophecies were rife, foretelling that he was the man destined to free Ireland. He had, for a time, a large number of followers, but they rapidly melted away from him, and he was glad to make terms with De Ginkle. The garrison, seeing no hope from O’Donnell, opened negociations with that general, the day after he had appeared before the city. They obtained very good terms, because he had orders to end the war as soon as possible, but, of course, they were violated as coolly as the Treaty of Limerick. While detached parties of English soldiers and militia were scouring the country, and hanging and shooting rapparees, or such of the people as they chose to call rapparees, De Ginkle, with a force of 1,500 horse and dragoons, and a reserve of 1,000 foot, proceeded with his principal officers to inspect the defences of Limerick, whilst the main body of his army were encamped at Caringlass. Reinforcements under Sir John Hannings and * General Mackey’s M.S. Memoirs, quoted by Dalrymple, Vol. I., p. 532. Dublin was in such an alarm that the inhabitants hurried to build defences round the city. t There is a full and admirable account of the battle of Aughrim to be found in Haverty’s History of Ireland, in which the character of St. Ruth is dealt with in a just and unprejudiced manner. IN IRELAND. 491 others soon arrived and joined him, so that his army when it came before Limerick, on the 25th of August, 1691, was stronger than at the opening of the campaign. It took up nearly the same position before the city, which the English had occupied the previous year. The siege having lasted one month, the garrison beat a parley and a cessation was agreed to. The Irish sent out proposals under seven heads, which were rejected by the besiegers ; new Articles were drawn up, and after consider- able discussion between the chief men of both armies, the famous Treaty of Limerick was agreed to ; it bears the date of the 3rd of October, 1691. This Treaty, so full of historic interest — so shamefully violated — demands something more than a passing notice. It contains forty-two Articles in all, twenty-nine military and thirteen civil : it is with the civil Articles only that we are here concerned. The first of them runs thus : “ The Roman Catholics of this Kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion, as are consistent with the laws of Ireland ; or, as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles the 11. ; and their Majesties as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a Parliament in this Kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that particular, as may preserve them from any disturbance upon account of their said religion.’’ This Article “ intended obviously,” says Mr. Fronde,, “ to confer religious liberty, might mean much or little, as it was interpreted and he proceeds to suggest that it could be interpreted to mean but “ little.” “ The Act of the 2nd of Elizabeth against Catholic worship was still unrepealed, although seldom enforced ; under Charles II. the practice varied,” and so Mr. Froude, with his usual adroitness, supplies, as he evidently desires, a defence for the violation of the said Article. He further says that the word “ endeavour,” contained therein, might be “ only a form of courtesy,” and might “ leave an opening to Parliament to refuse its sanction.” Mr. Froude ought to know,, and probably even felt at the time he wrote the above, that a solemn treaty for the delivering up of such a stronghold as Limerick was no time for such deceptive courtesies, and William’s after conduct with regard to the treaty shows he was honestly inclined to carry it out to the full extent, if permitted. Mr^ Froude, who is elsewhere very severe on William for his conces- sions ‘to the Irish,’ surely contradicts himself here, when he says “ endeavour ” might be intended by William as a courtesy instead of a reality.* * The English in Ireland, Vol. I., pp. 203-4. See also note. 492 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH But the restoration of the omitted clause in the second Article of the Treaty by the King himself is the best and com- pletest answer to Mr. Froude. Having given his full approval to the Treaty as printed, William goes on to say : And where- as it appears unto us, that it was agreed between the parties to the said Articles, that after the words : Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, Mayo, or any of them in the second of the said Articles, the words following, viz.: ‘ And all such as are under their protection in the said Comities/ should be inserted, and be part of the said Articles. Which words having been casually omitted by the writer, the omission was not discovered till after the said Articles were signed, but was taken notice of before the second town was surrendered ; and that our said Justices and General, or one of them, did promise that the said clause should be made good, it being within the intention of the capitulation, and inserted in the full draught thereof. Our further will and pleasure is, and we do hereby ratifie and confirm the said omitted words, viz. : and all such as are under their pro- tection in the said Counties. Hereby for us, our heirs and successors, ordaining and declaring, that all and every person and persons therein concerned, shall and may have, receive and enjoy the benefit thereof, in such and the same manner, as if the said words had been inserted in their proper place, in the said second Article; any omission, defect or mistake in the said second Article, in any wise notwithstanding.” The King’s ratification of the Articles of Limerick, from which the above extract is taken, was published by authority in 1692, with the Boyal Arms on the title page in the usual manner. The ratifi- cation itself, including the above passage, is printed at the end of the Articles ; yet Mr. Froude, with a courage all his own, writes of the restoration of the omitted words as follows : — “ The deliberate assertion of William ought not to be lightly questioned, yet it is difficult to credit that the accidental omis- sion of a paragraph of such enormous consequence should have passed undetected. The more probable explanation is, that the Lords Justices, who had arrived at the camp when the treaty was in progress, narrowed down the King’s liberality and extorted harder terms than he had prescribed or desired.”* This supposes that the Irish had agreed to the “ narrowing down,” which is quite untrue; for in the words of the King himself, the clause had been casually omitted by the writer, but the omission had been discovered before the second The English in Ireland, Yol. I., p. 206. IN IRELAND. 493 town was surrendered. Mr. Froude, of course, will not accept what seems to me the truest explanation of this remarkable incident, namely, that inasmuch as the clause in question saved the properties of thousands of Irish Catholics from the clutches of greedy English Adventurers, it was, by a touch of legerdemain, omitted on set purpose ; and that the Irish had dis- covered the fraud before the second or English town was delivered up.* Mr. Froude goes on ; “ Once more, in conclusion, the con- ditional character attached to the first of the Articles was extended to the whole.” The reader will please refer to the first Article, just cited in full, where he will see that the first clause is an unconditional concession ; and that it is to the second only, in which their Majesties promised to “ endeavour to secure the said Roman Catholics such further security,’’ &c., that a condition is attached. William bound himself by the Second Article to summon a Parliament, as soon as the state of his affairs would permit, to ratify the Treaty. The first Parliament that was summoned after it, met on the 5th of October, 1692, but was dissolved in September, 1693, without having had the Articles of Limerick brought before it. This in itself was a violation of the promise given in the Second Article; for the clear meaning of that Article is that the Treaty would be ratified, or at least brought before the first Parliament that could be called ; so that the summoning of such Parliament was prin- cipally for the purpose of ratifying the Articles. Hence its disso- lution, without anything having been done in that matter, was a violation of the Second Article. But why observe treaties, how- ever solemn, with a crushed and hated race ? Their army had gone to France, they were prostrated in the dust. They had no power to insist on the observance of treaties, hardly courage enough to complain of their violation. Surely the time had come to proceed with and finish that extermination of the natives, which was so long the favourite project of the English. Hence in this Parliament there was an Act passed “for the encouragement of Protestant strangers to settle in Ireland,” pro- vided that they took the oath of Allegiance and subscribed the * This is also the opinion of Mr. Prendergast, who says of Mr. Fronde’s explanation : “This is not the true state of facts. The treaty was concluded. The formal instrument ought to have followed the draft. But a most material part of the agreement was designedly and fraudulently omitted, and the Irish party signed in inadvertence.” — Froude Reviewed, part II. The Nation (news* paper) 7 Dec., 1872. 494 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Declaration, “ that the transubstantiation of the elements into the body and blood of Christ, and the adoration (sic) of saints are superstitious and idolatrous.” If they did this they were allowed to have public worship, and perform other religious duties according to their own several rites as used in their own countries. So there was Irish land and toleration for anybody but an Irish papist.* This law met with no opposition; but because the Commons rejected a money bill which did not originate with them, as it should have done, Sydney “ checked them in a severe speech, and entered a protest against their proceedings in his Majesty’s name.”t Two years had passed before another Parliament was assembled. Meantime, the Government officials, the sheriffs, and, in fact, all those in authority throughout the country, behaved as if no Articles of Limerick had been agreed to at all. A numerous and powerful faction maintained that the Irish should have got no terms, and that it was a crime in the General and the Lords- Justices to have agreed to them. As the Irish were not in a condition to defend themselves, this tyrannical faction, in their insolent strength, trampled upon the helpless people, and acted as they pleased. “ The designing men of this party,” says Harris, quarrelled with the Articles, only because their expectations were dis- appointed, of raising large fortunes out of the forfeitures by their interest or their money.”J This war against the Articles of Limerick was proclaimed, even from the pulpit, as soon as they * The favourite object of the Irish Croveruor and the English Parliament was the utter extermination of all the Catholic inhabitants of Ireland. Their estates were already marked out, and allotted to their conquerors ; so that they and their posterity were consigned to inevitable ruin.” Leland III., 192. It was confidently averred that Sir J ohn Clottworthy, who well knew the designs of the faction that governed in the House of Commons of England, had declared there in a speech, “ that the conversion of the Papists in Ireland was only to be effected by the Bible in one hand and the sword in the other.” Nalson. Quoted by Carte, Vol. L, p. 235. “ And Mr. Pym gave out that they would not leave a priest in Ireland.” Ib. p. 236. “To the like effect Sir William Parsons, out of a strange weakness, or detestable policy, positively asserted before many witnesses, at a public entertainment in Dublin, ‘ that within a twelvemonth no Catholic should be seen in Ireland.’ ” Ib. p. 236. “It is evident, however, from their last letter [that of the ministers of the Crown] to the Lord Lieutenant, just mentioned, that they hoped for an extir- pation^ not of the mere Irish only, but of all the old English families also that were Roman Catholics.” History of the Rebellion and Civil War in Ireland, by [the Rev.] Ferd. Warner, LL.D., p. 176. 2«^? Ed. But the Irish Papists still survive ; they seem to spring spontaneously from the soil, like that immortal plant which clothes our plains with verdure, and they are as difficult to be eradicated. t Harris’s William HI., Vol. 3, p. 251. t Life of William III., Vol. 3, p. 247. IN IKELAND. 495 were signed. The very next Sunday after the Lords- Justices had returned from the camp at Limerick, Dr. Dopping, Bishop of Meath, preached before them in Christ’s Church, Dublin, telling them to their faces “that the peace ought not to be observed with a people so perfidious ; that they kept neither articles nor oaths longer than was for their interest, and that, therefore, these articles, which were intended for a security, would prove a snare, and would only enable the rebels to play their pranks over again on the first opportunity.”* * * § The second Parliament which was held after the Treaty of Limerick was opened by Lord Capel, who had been appointed Lord Deputy the previous May.t The session opened on the 19th of August, 1695, 7 William III. In his address on the occasion, Capel, who was of course but the mouthpiece of the King, made no reference to the Articles of Limerick, but urgently recommended the making of such laws as would prevent their “ enemies ” (meaning the Catholics) from ever again being able to give them any trouble. After announcing that the King was in need of money to pay his debts and support the army he becomes pious, and tells them to turn their attention to the building of churches as a “tribute due to Almighty God for their late preservation and delivery and assures them it will he one of the best means they can think of to preserve the true established religion and to provide against future rebellions.! He next informs them that the Lords- Justices of England had re- transmitted all the bills sent to them, and that some of those bills would more effectually provide for their future security “ than hath ever hitherto been done he expresses his opinion that the want of such laws had been “ the great cause of their past miseries,” and he urges them to lay hold on the opportunity afforded of “ making such a lasting settlement that it may never more be in the power of their enemies to bring the like calamities upon them, or to put England to such a vast expense of blood and treasure.”§ The laws enacted in this Parliament are the best commentary on the above words of Lord Deputy Capel. || * Ibid. p. 248. t Sydney was recalled in 1693, and Capel, Sir Cyril Wyche, and Mr. Dun- nombe were appointed Lords-Justices. The two latter were too honest and impartial for Capel, so he got rid of them, and obtained the office of Lord Deputy for himself. X Commons’ Journals (Irish), Vol. II., p. 44. § Ibid. U There were no Catholics in this Parliament. They were excluded from both Houses by an English Statute passed in 1691. 3 William and Mary, Chap. 2. (England). They were not excluded as Catholics ; but it was enacted 496 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH By the first of these laws Catholics were forbidden, under severe penalties, to establish schools for the education of their children. The note in the margin of the Act is, “ Mischief of tolerating popish schools at home.” It is further provided that persons of the popish religion shall not publicly teach school, nor shall they be allowed to do so in private houses, except the children or others under the guardianship of the master or mis- tress of such private house or family. Whoever did so would incur the penalty of three months’ imprisonment and a fine of £20. The Acts of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth for establishing public [Protestant] schools were revived, and ordered to be put in execution. While education was thus banned at home, it was made criminal to seek it abroad ; and Catholic parents were prohibited from sending their children to foreign schools of any kind, or even to have them trained up in any private popish family.” Should parents succeed in evading this law, and send their children to be educated abroad by stealth, and supply them with the means of support there, the penalties for doing so were terrible, and they applied to whomsoever sent such sup- port as well as to parents. Persons found guilty of those offences were deprived of the power of ever prosecuting a lawsuit in any court, no matter how good their cause, or how great the loss they suffered by such deprivation; neither could they be guardians, executors, or administrators ; they became incapable of receiving any legacy of deed or gift, and could not hold any office during their natural lives. This is falsely styled a clause “ to restrain foreign education,” as if Protestants, equally with Catholics, were restrained by it. But, oh, boasted British Con- stitution, where are your blushes ? The offences in these cases were taken as committed, unless the party accused proved the contrary ! The accuser had no trouble at all. He had only to put the accused on his trial, rack him with questions, which he had to answer on his oath, and find him guilty if he did not prove a negative. By chapter 5 of this Act, Catholics were that neither peer nor commoner could sit in Parliament without taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, making and subscribing the declaration against Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, etc. It was illegal and an invasion of the rights of the Irish Parliament to apply this Act to Ireland. The English Parliament had no authority to make laws for Ireland ; all the authority they had regarding this country was founded on Poyning’s law, which was, that the Irish Parliament could not pass any bill without first submitting its heads to the English Privy Council for approval. If approved of, it was sent back, if not, no more was heard about it. Those rejected bills were not destroyed ; they exist somewhere still. They would be curious and instructive reading now. IN IRELAND. 497 deprived of the power of bearing arms, all licences to bear arms were revoked, and the Catholics bad to deliver up all guns, etc., and ammunition in their possession. The penalty for the first offence against this law was fine and imprisonment, and for the second praemunire. Magistrates were empowered to search houses for arms — an authority which opened the way to all kinds of insult and outrage. Catholics were not allowed to have a horse above £5 in value, it being assumed, says Mr. Froude, that they only required them “for agricultural purposes.” !N'o; not that. But their slavery would be incomplete if they possessed horses good enough “ to ride or drive.” Any Protes- tant could tender five guineas for the horse of a Catholic, and if the owner refused it, it might be lodged with a magistrate and the horse seized.* Such was the fear lest the Irish might have it in their power to obtain arms in any way, that gunmakers and sword cutlers were forbidden to receive Catholic apprentices ; nor could they themselves practise their trades without having taken the Oath of Allegiance, and the usual oaths against popery. There was a fine of £20 for every offence against this law, and the indenture was made void. Magistrates were authorised to send for apprentices to those trades, and tender the oaths to them, a refusal to take which was regarded as a conviction. There is a note appended to this law in the Statute Book, that it is “ intended to be a perpetual law.” Chapter 21 of this Statute was, as it is there declared, “ for the suppression of tories, rapparees, etc., as their existence greatly discouraged the re-planting of the Kingdom” — not with trees be it known to the reader, but “ with [Protestant] strangers.” From the wording of this chapter we may fairly conclude that any native who manifested opposition to a Pro- testant stranger, who came to settle down on the land so lately his, was to be regarded as a tory or a rapparee, and treated accordingly. The baronies were made responsible for any depredations of the rapparees, and the Catholic inhabitants were compelled to make good any loss or injury inflicted within * The following story was current in Meath many years ago. A Protestant met a Catholic neighbour on the high way riding a horse of far more value than five pounds. He took the requisite sura out of his pocket, and tendering it to the owner, claimed the horse. The owner said, “ Oh, I see, Mr. , you mean to put the old penal statute in force against me. Very well.” And so he dismounted. The Protestant took his place and rode off. The owner prosecuted him for robbing him of a bridle and saddle. Robbery was at the time a capital offence, and the story ran that the Protestant was capitally convicted in Trim at the following assizes, a fact that put an end to such scandalous proceedings, of which the Protestants themselves had become ashamed. 2i 498 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH their several baronies. Persons represented by the grand juries as “ on their keeping ” (as the phrase was), were to be proclaimed, and unless they surrendered to take their trials, they were out- lawed. To conceal or harbour them was made felony, and any one who would bring in a proclaimed tory, dead or alive, was entitled to a reward of twenty pounds.* Such was the legislation the Irish received instead of the ratification of the Articles of Limerick. Having done such an amount of effective persecuting work, and having given it two years to take effect, the Parliament bethought them of doing something about the Articles of Limerick. What mockery ! but it is just possible, that those tyrants, wise in their own conceits, meant it to be accepted that the placing of those penal laws on the statute before any ratifica- tion was given to the Articles of Limerick justified them in dealing with those Articles just as they pleased. The charm persecution had for them was wonderful. Even in the Session of 9 William HI. which seems to have been specially called to deal with those Articles, the first thing the Parliament did, was to hurl one more thunderbolt at the devoted head of Popery. By Chapter I. it is enacted, “ That all Papists exercising ecclesias- tical jurisdiction, and all regulars, should quit the kingdom before the first of May, 1698.” Those who remained after that were punished with fines and forfeitures ; and any person who harboured them was to be dealt with in the same manner. Magistrates failing to put this law in execution, were fined £100 for each offence, and “disabled” from serving as Justices during their lives. For any of the so expelled ecclesiastics to return was high treason. One of the reasons given in the preamble for this enactment is that the presence of those ecclesiastics in Ireland tended to the “great impoverishing of many of his Majesty’s subjects, who are forced to maintain and support them.” What bowels of compassion those men had for the poor Papists against whom the above Draconic laws had been but just enacted! Having thus offered incense to the Moloch of religious perse- cution, they proceed to eliminate from the Treaty of Limerick all the provisions of real value; and this proceeding they have the hardihood to designate a confirmation of that Treaty. Addressing the King, they state in the Preamble, that,t “ Whereas, your Majesty hath been graciously pleased to recommend to 3mur Parliament, that the said Articles, or such of them as may con- sist ^vith the safety and ivelfare of your Majesty s subjects of * 7 William and Mary, Cap. 21. Irish Statutes, Vol. II. t C. II. 9 William 111. IN lEELAND. 499 this kingdom,^ may be confirmed by authority of this present Parliament ; we the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, &c., and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled,” &c. In this so called confirmation of the Articles, the passage fraudulently omitted in the second of them, and ordered by the King to be re-inserted in its proper place, is omitted ; as is also the clause which guaranteed to the Catholics the exercise of their several trades and professions. It omits the fourth Article altogether. And what is very important, it remits the benefit of the indemnity, as granted by the sixth Article, to a period subsequent to the 10th of April, 1689, and thereby enables all persons who suffered any injuries between the 5th of November, 1688, and 10th of April 1689, to bring their actions for the same until the 1st of September 1691 ; for it declares that the commencement of the war referred to in the said Article, was the 10th of April 1689, and not the 5th of November, 1688. The 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Articles are wholly omitted. Thus were the Irish Catholics robbed of rights which by solemn treaty belonged to them ; but be it remembered that in the above preamble the Parliament claims the King’s authority for the robbery. Persons have been found to excuse William, for permittino' the violation of the Articles of Limerick. There can be no excuse for the violation of a treaty, but the impossibility of fulfilling it. This is true of all treaties, but especially so of such a one as that of Limerick, on which the freedom of a nation depended. If a man sells a horse, say for £20, and delivers the horse to the purchaser, surely he is entitled to the £20. Hence, when the Irish army delivered up Limerick on certain conditions, signed and sealed in the most solemn manner, the price should be paid, which was the fulfilment of the con- ditions on which it was delivered up. Those conditions were the relaxation of penal laws. They were not only not relaxed, but new ones were enacted in violation of the Articles. It was beyond the power of King or Parliament to curtail or alter such a treaty. To do so was to obtain goods under false pretences, and then refuse to pay for them, a crime punishable by the laws of every civilized nation. If the Parliament did not like the terms of the treaty, they had no power to set them aside, without puttinfy the other contracting parties in the same position which they held before the treaty was made. This could not be done, and there was, therefore, no course open but to fulfil the terms of treaty. It is put forward in William’s defence that he was The italics are the Author’s. 500 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH compelled to yield to the wishes of the Anti-Irish and Protestaot party. Such logic would go to justify the violation of any contract. All required for the purpose would be to bring sufficient pressure to bear on one of the parties, who could then declare that he dared not fulfil his engagements. But William was in no such difficulty. Was he not the King ? Could any subject presume to come into his presence and ask him to break his royal word, to repudiate his solemn engagements, made to the vast majority of the subjects of one of his kingdoms ? Could he not have refused to sign the Law of 1697, by which the Articles of Limerick were flagrantly violated ? He had done such things before. Did he not on two occasions threaten to return to Holland, if certain things of which he disapproved, were done ? When he was taking the coronation oath of Scotland, and had come to the clause, by which he was to promise to root out heretics, he stopped the Earl of Argyle, who was administering the oath, and declared that he did not intend to bind himself to become a per- secutor. The Commissioners said that such was not the meaning of the oath. “ Well,” said William, take it in that sense only.”* In 1692, a bill passed both Houses of the English Par- liament for establishing triennial Parliaments. Yet, William, not liking such Parliaments, rejected the hill. Could he not have acted the same part in Ireland, the weaker country, and therefore the less dangerous to him ? But to set the matter quite at rest, the Irish Parliament, as stated above, alleged truly, no doubt, the King s authority for altering the Articles of Lmerick, as they deemed fit. They did so, and he, the King, approved of their action, by his royal signature. The establishment of the woollen manufacture in Ireland dates from the time of Edward III. ; and long before William became King of England, it was the staple trade of this country. Grazing had been a large and profitable industry, but at the instance of English agriculturists, a law was passed to prevent the sending of Irish cattle into England, which compelled the Irish to give greater attention to sheep farming than they had previously done. Wool, for which a ready sale was obtained in England, became very plenty But this piece of prosperity also awakened the jealousy of English farmers, and they called for legis- lation against it. No Act specially directed against it was passed, but its free exportation was much interfered with by a rule that it should be only sent to certain ports in England from certain other ports in Ireland. These things, however, although important in Dalrymple, Vol. I., p. 327. IN IRELAND. 501 themselves, were inconsiderable when compared with the sweep- ing and destructive legislation against the exportation of Irish woollens. The bill dealing with this subject was brought into the House of Commons in 1697, but was not passed until 1699. The English House of Lords, addressing the King in 1698, said, that “ the growing manufacture of cloth in Ireland, both by the cheapness of all sorts of necessaries for life, and goodness of materials for making all manner of clothy doth invite your subjects of England with their families to leave their habitations to settle there, to the increase of the woollen manufacture in Ireland, which makes your loyal subjects in this kingdom very apprehensive, that the further groiuth of it may greatly prejudice the said manufacture here.”* * * § They then beseech his Majesty to declare, in the ‘‘most public and effectual” way to his subjects in Ireland, that “the increase of the woollen manufacture there is, and ever will be, the cause of much jealousy to his English subjects,” and they call for “ very strict laws” that this state of things might be remedied. The King, in his answer to this Address, declares that he “will take care to do what their lordships have desired.”t The Commons addressed him in the same strain, adding : — “ And we do most humbly implore your Majesty’s protection and favour in this matter ; and that you will make it your royal care, and enjoin all those you employ in Ireland, to make it their care, and use their utmost diligence, to hinder the exportation of wool, except to be imported hitherf and for discouraging the woollen manufactures, and encouraging the linen manufactures to which we shall be always ready to give our utmost assistance.”§ To this request the King’s answer is very explicit: — “I shall,” he says, “do all that in me lies to discourage the woollen trade in Ireland, and encourage the linen manufacture there ; and to promote the trade of England.” Next, then, to “ the growth of Popery,” the growth of wool and woollens in Ireland excited the anger, and called forth the fierce legislation of our English sister ; so that the father and founder of the “ glorious constitution” of 1688 forbade the Irish Catholics to save their souls, or provide for their bodies, in the way that seemed best to themselves. The King and English Parliament were thus cordially united * 9th June, 1698, Lords’ [English] Journals, p. 314. t Ibid., 315. J 30th June, 1698. § That is to England, whereas they could get higher prices for their wool in foreign countries. 502 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH for the destruction of the woollen manufacture in Ireland ; but it was their desire that the bill for that purpose should be passed by the Irish Parliament. So, on the first day of the Parliamentary session of 1698 (27th September), the Lords Justices with a duplicity that would be more truly described by a shorter word, told the Parliament that a bill had been transmitted (from the English Privy Council) “ for the encouragement of the linen and hempen manufacture,” adding that ‘‘ the settlement of this manufacture will contribute much to people the country, and will be foundmuc/i more advantageous to this kingdom than the wool- len manufacture, which being the settled staple trade of England, from whence all foreign markets are supplied, can never be encouraged here for that purpose.”* This sinister mode of intro- ducing the subject did not deceive the Irish Commons, and they only promised “ their hearty endeavours to encourage a linen and hempen manufacture in Ireland ; and they further hoped to find such a temperament in respect to the woollen trade that the same might not be injurious to England.”* The subject was referred to the Committee of Supply, which resolved that an additional duty should be laid on old and new drapery manufac- tured in Ireland, and exported to England (friezes excepted).” To this the House agreed. Petitions soon began to be pre- sented both against this duty and the amount of it. The Committee proceeded in a slow, dilatory manner, expecting, probably, that public opinion against the impost would grow stronger. Those in England who had resolved to seize the Irish woollen trade for themselves would not brook delay, and became impatient, and the Lords- Justices, doubtless inspired by them^ went down to the House to urge despatch with regard to the bilb saying, amongst other things — “We thought thegreatest mark we could give of oiir kindness and concern for you was, to come hither and desire you to hasten the dispatch of the matters under your consideration, in which we are the more earnest, because we must be sensible that if the present opportunity of bis Majesty’s affection to you hath put into your hands be lost, it seems hardly to be recovered. ’’J The Committee resolved to consider a duty to be laid on the woollen manufacture, but neither William nor his English friends were prepared to await consideration. So the Lords- Justices sent a message next day with a bill cut and dry, saying they had his Majesty’s commands * Hutchinson’s Commercial Restraints, p. 99. t Ibid., p. 100. X Com. Jour., 1032. IN IRELAND. 503 to have it passed in the present session of Parliament, “ inas- much,” they add, “as it may be of great advantage for the preservation of the trade of this kingdom.” This was snubbing the Irish Commons and repeating the old untruth. The bill passed without any vigorous opposition, the numbers being 105 for, and only 41 against it. It put 20 per cent, on all broadcloth exported out of Ireland^ and 10 per cent, on new draperies, friezes excepted. By draperies, it seems, were meant woollen fabrics inferior to broadcloth. But this law was not destructive enough to satisfy the greed of England, and so there was a law passed in the English Parliament in June, 1699, prohibiting in perpetuity the exportation from Ireland of all goods made of or mixed with wool, except to England and Wales and with leave of the Commissioners of the revenue. Thus was annihilated the staple manufacture of Ireland. William was not much of a religious man. His early training in that direction was neither extensive nor profound. The reli- gion he had was drawn from the atmosphere in which he lived, rather than from any course of instruction. He had a natural taste for the military life, and was anxious to gain distinction as a soldier, but the circumstances in which he found himself com- pelled him to devote more time to the planning of political combinations than to the science of war ; for some powerful European league in which Holland would be a factor was absolutely necessary to enable him to resist the enemies who threatened, not only the existence of his little principality, but the independence of all Holland. His dread, his aversion, his hete noire was Louis XIV. No wonder. That powerful and warlike King dashed across the Rhine in 1672, with an army so powerful that the Dutch could not offer it even a feeble resist- ance. He crossed at a lonely, undefended place, near where the Yssel parts from the Rhine, his whole cavalry taking the water, although the horses had to swim a considerable portion of it at the centre.* He overran Holland. All the troops the Dutch could spare from their fortresses could do no more than watch his movements. To get him away they had to sacrifice a vast amount of property by opening the sluices and laying the country under water. The Dutch had risen to importance some time before the invasion of Louis, and v/ere very proud of the part they took in the Triple Alliance, which led to the treaty of Aix la * Louis proposed to take the river at the head of the guards, but was dissuaded from doing so by the Prince de Cond^, who in such an event would, in honour, be obliged to follow him ; but the great Cond4 had the gout, and he feared cold water to his feet, more than he did the bullets or sabres of the enemy. —Life and Times of Louis XLV. By G. P. R. James, Vol. If., p. 184. 504 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Chapelle, in 1668. They even affected a contempt for Louis, by calling him “ the King of Reviews,” because he was fond of military display. But he gave a terrible emphasis to the sneer, after crossing the Rhine; for his triumphant progress through their country was more like a review than real warfare. Not long after this he levelled the walls of Orange to the ground. This William never forgave. It so rankled in his heart that he was afterwards heard to say, “he hoped to live to make Louis feel what it was to insult a Prince of Orange and there can be no doubt that his anxiety to become King of England had its deepest root in this desire, as it would place resources at his disposal to gratify it. After coming to England he formed what is known in history as the Grand Alliance, which consisted of the Emperor, the States-General of Holland, and William him- self. He has been much praised for this combination, but although it inflicted many severe losses on France, it failed to secure the objects for which it was formed, and the peace of Ryswick left France as powerful as ever. As a soldier William had many valuable qualities. He was brave, far-seeing to provide for eventualities, patient, and although he felt defeat as keenly as any man, he did not allow himself to be too much cast down by it. But he was not a great captain, and his victories were neither many nor brilliant. No one thought of comparing him with Turenne, Cond4, Villiers, or any of the first-class generals of France, who were his cotemporaries. He was one of the most mysterious and incommunicative of men. His speeches to his Parliament are models of vague obscurity, which they sometimes resented in the most decided manner. He had favourites, but did his best to conceal his attachment to them. In this he failed, because the lavish way in which he squandered the forfeited lands upon them, to the neglect of many who aided in bringing him to the throne, revealed them in spite of him. Meanwhile the people were over-burthened with taxes to pay his war expenses.* See Note F. IN IRELAND. 505 CHAPTER XXV. REIGN OF ANNE.* Varied and well planned as were the persecutions inflicted on Ireland for generations before the reign of Anne, it was reserved for her and her advisers to fashion a penal code notorious in our history for its ingenious wickedness. This monarch is said to have been kindly and amiable, although self-willed and choleric at times, but always too easily influenced by those she trusted. Hence she was continually in the hands of some favourite. Sarah Jennings, the famous Duchess of Marlborough, ruled her, and through her the nation, for many years. She obtained for her husband such favours as he desired. She gave away places under the Crown in abundance, for which, according to common report, she exacted high prices ; and the allegation derives force from the fact, that she died worth £3,000,000 — a sum equal in value to double the amount at the present time. Anne was the youngest daughter of James II. by his first wife, Anne Hyde. She was married to Prince George of Denmark, a lazy nonentity, whose chief merit was that he did not trouble himself about affairs, and perhaps had not capacity enough to take an interest in them. His wife, by an act of silliness, not excusable even in a wife, had him made Admiral of the fleet, although he was incapable of commanding a cockboat. Anne, notwithstanding that she was so nearly allied to William III. by blood and marriage, was coldly treated by him — neglected in fact — during his reign. She had sense enough to bear this neglect, as well as her forced retirement from publicbusiness,about which she was never consulted. She ascended the throne in the * This princess had few qualities worthy of admiration or respect. She was frequently ill, and the illness was usually put down as gout, which no doubt was true. The cause of the gout was never alluded to, but tradition says, she was too fond of stimulants. In a letter of Peter Wentworth’s in the Wentworth Papers [1705-1739], the real cause was given, but the Editor suppressed it, adding this footnote: — “ Here follows a paragraph about Dr. Alburtnight and the state of the Queen’s health, expressed in the plainest terms'^ This passage is very suggestive Wentworth Papers (1883), p. 302. On the statue of Anne in front of St. Paul’s (lately removed) some wicked wit once scribbled the following distich : — “ Here stands Queen Anne, left England in the lurch, With her face to the brandy shop — her back to the church.” 506 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH thirty-eighth year of her age, and was sooq popular with the nation — far more than ever her predecessor was, who, during the time he reigned in England, seemed to feel like a man in a strange land, his true country and home being Holland. The people of England were much of the same opinion. So that instead of being united by mutual confidence, they used each other for their own separate ends. William employed the resources of England — men and money~to fight the battles of Holland ; the Protestants of England made use of William to keep out the Pope and the Pretender. Anne gets credit for having been a woman of superior piety — a reputation easily acquired in her time, when the whole Church of England, lay and cleric, appears to have sunk into a state of spiritual letharg3^ Her father, who loved her much, was anxious about her religion, especially towards the close of his life, but she remained firm as a rock in her Protes- tant belief. This was all fair enough, if she were only tolerant, but she had a horror of dissent, and perhaps she is not much to be blamed for this, when the highest Protestant intellects in the land, either could not see, or refused to see, that all Protestan- tism is based on dissent, or, in other words, on the right of private judgment, and that Dissenters of every kind are as justified in breaking away from the English Church as that Church itself was in severing itself from the Catholic Church. Protestants cut the ground completely from under their own feet, when they persecute people for following their independent judgment in matters of religion. But there was a special reason why Anne should hesitate long before she would sign penal laws against the Catholics of Ireland. They were her father’s loyal subjects and supporters ; they never ceased to regard him as their King ; they fought and bled for him ; and had been the faithful defenders of his house against Cromwell and the Parliament, as well as against William. Perhaps she could not save them from all persecution, but she could have modified it by showing an aversion to it, whereas she left them to their merciless enemies without the slightest indication of sympathy. At her accession, the Earl of Rochester was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In those days it was usual with our Chief Governors to remain out of this country as much as possible, and some of them never came over at all. Rochester, following this custom, kept about the Court, lest his influence should go down and his interests be forgotten in his absence. Anne thinking it unbe- coming in him to be absent from his important post, sent him a message to prepare to go to Ireland. Having taken some days for consideration, he placed his resignation in her Majesty’s IN IRELAND. 507 hands. She readily accepted it, and to succeed him immediately appointed the Duke of Ormonde who was then in high favour, after his successes at Vigo. Ormonde was a name of ill omen to Ireland, and such it proved to be in this instance.* Before entering upon the legislation of Anne’s first Irish Parliament against the Catholics, it is well to premise, that there was nothing in their conduct to call for such legislation. They showed no disloyalty. While England, and Scotland still more, were hotly engaged in promoting the cause of the Pretender, the Catholics of Ireland, so far from joining in the feeling, did not manifest by any act of theirs the least attachment to him. They were prostrate in the dust. They were ruined and utterly incap- able of any effort, even if they had the desire to make one. The ferocious statutes against them, as Burke called them, were not the result of fear, but of security. The dominant faction, in the insolence of their success, trampled upon the Catholics for the mean, diabolic pleasure it afforded them. In the preamble to the Act of 1703-4 there are no fears of rebellion expressed, no * This was James, second and last Duke of Ormonde. He was the son of Thomas, Eaid of Ossory, and grandson of the first Duke, in whose house he was brought up. At an early age he adopted the military profession, in which he became distinguished. When the combined fleets of England and Holland attacked Vigo in 1702, he had command of the military forces, consisting^ of 12,000 men, who after having landed, found immense booty, which they carried off. Part of this booty consisted of about 50 tons of superior snuff, stored there, and at Port St. Mary. Having been brought home it was sold at a cheap rate. This gave the first great stimulus to snuff-taking in England, where the habit was little known before. — [AshtorCs Social Life in the Reign of Queen Anney p. 158). Ormonde was twice Lord Lieutenant of Ireland — 1703 to 1707, and 1711 to 1713. When Marlborough fell into disgrace, Ormonde succeeded him as general of the allied forces in the war against France, The Dutch did not like the change, and joined Prince Eugene in the command with him. Meantime the Queen and her advisers, especially St. John, the Foreign Secretary, resolved to con- clude a separate peace with France, unknown to the Allies, and sent secret orders to Ormonde to delay, as best he could, active hostilities. This placed him in a most embarrassing position, as the other commanders were anxious to open the campaign. On various pleas he avoided attacking the French, and England having obtained from Louis XIV. terms deemed satisfactory, Ormonde returned home. The whole affair was most disgraceful to Anne and her ministers. Ormonde was not to blame, as the orders from his government were peremptory. St. John, afterwards Lord Bolingbroke, who managed this business was that St. John whom Pope addresses in the opening lines of his Essay on Man. The tact and ability, shown by Ormonde in this miserable affair, gave great satisfaction to the Queen and government, but it led to his ruin. On the accession of George I., he was deprived of his offices, and fled to Fiance. He was impeached for his conduct in the war ; the charges were proved ; he was attainted of high treason his name erased from the list of peers, and from the order of the Garter. The Irish Parliament set £10,000 upon his head, and his estate was vested in the Crown. Spain allowed him £1,500 a year, to maintain him, and he spent the remainder of his days in the cause of the Pretender. He died in Vib^.—Conduct of the Duke of Ormonde in the Campaign of 1712. London^ 1748. Webb's Com* pendium of Irish Biography, p. 63. 508 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH trials of disaffection or conspiracy. The Act is simply called “ An Act to prevent the further growth of Popery” — not because it was dangerous or disaffected to the State, hut because it was Popery, The Duke of Ormonde opened the session on 1st September, 1703, in a short and rather jaunty speech, in which he told the Collective Wisdom that the heads of excellent bills had come from England, and that the Queen effectually manifested her tender concern for them in giving them an opportunity of passing those gracious bills, '' and of making such other laws, as may yet be wanting for the establishment of the Protestant religion, and the welfare of the kingdom.”* It has been made matter of discussion whether theEnglish or Irish Parliament is the more responsible for the Act against the further growth of Popery. The thing is of little consequence ; but both seem equally responsible. No doubt the question led to much correspondence between them, but each seems to have been determined to put an effectual stop to the growth of Popery. Burnet says the Irish Parliament were so anxious for the bill that it “ was offered to the Duke of Ormonde, [they] pressing him with more than usual vehemence to inter- cede so effectually, that it might be returned back under the great seal of England.”*!- The English Parliament, then in session, set so much importance on the bill that ministers judged it unsafe to refuse it, but they added a clause to it “ that none in Ireland should be capable of any employment, or of being in the magistracy in any city, who did not qualify themselves by receiving the Sacrament, according to the Test Act passed in England.” The object of this clause was to have the bill rejected in Ireland, as the Presbyterians of Ulster would not submit to this test. If they did, they could hold no official employment, a privation which the Irish Parliament would not, it was pre- sumed, think of inflicting upon them. Yet the Irish Houses regarded the Act as so valuable against Papists, that that Par- liament passed it — test clause and all, although there were many influential Dissenters in the House of Commons. The Dissenters petitioned against the Act on account of that clause, but on receiving a promise that the said clause would be repealed on the first opportunity, they withdrew their opposition ; yet it was not repealed for many a year, and was often piit in force against them. After the Hanoverian succession, the clause was either artfully evaded or benignly connived at,” as far as the Dissen- ters were concerned. t * Irish Commons’ Journals, 1703. t Burnet, reign of Anne, 170.3. t Curry’s Civil Wars, Vol II., p. 236. IN IRELAND. 509 • Colonel Eyre, Mr. Tenison, Sir Francis Blundell, and Mr. Singleton were appointed to draft the bill. The Parliament met on the 1st of September, 1703. The heads of the bill were laid on the table of the House of Commons by Mr. Tenison, on the 19th November, and it received the Royal Assent in March, 1704. This long delay proves how much discussion went on about it, between the English and Irish House of Commons. The penal laws against the Irish Catholics, as a modern Pro- testant historian has truly said, were “deliberately intended to demoralize as well as degrade.’’* Hence Section 3 of this Act turns the child into a rebel against the parent, for it is therein enacted that, “ Lest children of Popish parents, who have professed, or are ivilling to profess, the Protestant religion should be cast off by their parents, or disinherited by them,” it is lawful for the Court of Chancery, on being applied to, to order a suitable maintenance for every such Protestant child. Thus was the child made the master of the parent, with power to put him into Chancery, if he did not allow him to do as he pleased. To suppose that children in such cases became Protestants through conviction is an utter absurdity. Not one in a hundred of them could have the opportunity, and not one in a thousand the ability and edu- cation to study and weigh the dogmas of the adverse creeds. Moreover — wonderful absurdity ! — no age was specified at which a child could become a Protestant ; so it could be done at any ao-e. Religious conviction had nothing to do with the matter, and the more froward and vicious the child, the greater likelihood would there be of his “ conversion.” Look at the converse of this : one of the reasons for this bill, given in the preamble, is, that “ some Protestants had been perverted to Popery,” a crime of course, calling aloud for punishment ; but the conversion or pretended conversion of Papists to Protestantism was an act so holy and praiseworthy, that it entitled children at any age, to trample upon the most sacred rights and the tenderest feelings of human nature. From the beginning of religious persecution in Ireland, a leading feature of it was to get hold of the heirs of estated Catholics, and make them Protestants. Such was the sole object of the nefarious Court of Wards; and the same cunningly * Lecky’s Histoiy of Eagland in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. I., p. 283. The Act against the further growth of Popery “ has the reputation of being the most energetic of all the measures, devised by Anglo-Saxon ingenuity, for ridding the land of this spiritual pestilence. The English Parliament had, in 1699, given birth to an enactment of no gentle nature But the Irish Act far outstripped the English in ferocity and cunning. In truth it stopped short only at the point of direct confiscation of the estates of Roman Catholics.” — ■ Wyon’s History of England during the Reign of Queen Anne, Vol. I., pp. 172-3. 510 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH devised plan is followed in this act, for in it is enacted, that should the eldest son become a Protestant, his Popish parent shall become and shall be only a tenant for life of his estate, whether held in feetail or fee simple, and the reversion in fee shall be vested in such son.” This section was framed to destroy Catholics of property throughout the kingdom. It made ample and stringent provisions for the perversion of Catholics, and offered the most tempting rewards, if they would only loretend to become Protestants. Py the 4th Section the Popish father is debarred, under a penalty of £500, from being a guardian to, or from having the custody of his own children. If the child, though of infantile years, pretends to be a Protestant, it is to he taken from its own father, and put into the hands of a Protestant relation ; or if the mother pretends to be a Protestant, the child can be taken and placed with a Protestant to be educated at the Popish father’s expense. In Section 5 special provision is made for protecting the religion of Protestants. It is there provided, “ that if any Protestant having an estate real or personal within the Kingdom will intermarry with a Papist, either wdthin the Kingdom or in other places out of it, he shall be subject to the penalties of 9 William III.”^ The first oath prescribed by this Act contains the usual declaration against Transubstantiation, the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and saints. A second oath had to be taken against the Pretender. The 6th Section renders Papists incapable of purchasing any manors, tenements, hereditaments, or any rents or profits arising out of the same ; or of holding any lease of lives, or other lease whatever, for any term exceeding thirty-one years; but if such farm produced a profit greater than one-third of the rent, the right in it ceased, and passed over to the first Protestant who discovered the rate of profit. The 7th Section deprived Papists of any inheritance, devise, gift, remainder or trust of any lands, tenements, etc., of which any Protestant was, or should be seized in fee simple absolute, or fee tail, and which, by the death of such Protestant, or his wife, ought to descend to his son or other issue in tail, and makes them descend to the nearest Protestant relation, the same as if the popish heir and other popish relations were dead. By the 10th Section, if a Papist has no Protestant heir, his estate is to be divided, share and share alike among all his * See page 498. IN lEELAND. Oil sons, or in the absence of sons, amongst his daughters, and failing these, among the collateral kindred of his father. The object of this is plain : it was to prevent the Irish from having amongst them any man who could assume a position of authority or leadership ; in fact, to make us a nation of peasants, and as far as possible, of paupers.* Other sections there are of the same import, hut we can only find space for the special enactment against Papists being allowed to reside in corporate towns, more especially Limerick and Galway. In Section 23 a portion of the Act of 17th and 18th Charles II. (Section 36.) is recited to the effect that no person or persons are to be allowed to possess any houses within any corporate town, or take any lease thereof, but such as should take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, without the license of the Chief Governor or Governors of the Kingdom and Privy Council. Section 23 then proceeds, And whereas, the peace and safety of this Kingdom and the welfare of her Majesty’s Protestant subjects will much depend on the security of the city of Limerick and town of Galway, and of their being in possession of her Majesty’s Protestant subjects, and being considerable garrisons in this her Majesty’s Kingdom; be it enacted that no person or persons that are or shall be Papists, or profess the popish religion, shall or may after the 24th day of March, in the Year of Our Lord 1703-4, take or purchase any house or tenement, or come to dwell or inhabit within the said city of Limerick, or within the town of Galway, or suburbs thereof ; and that every person of the popish religion now inhabiting within the said city or suburbs of Limerick, or within the said town or suburbs of Galway, shall, before the said 24th of March next ensuing, before the Chief Magistrate of the said respective city or town, become bound to her Majesty, her heirs and suc- cessors with two sufficient securities, in a reasonable penal sum to be assessed by the Chief Magistrate, recorder and sheriff’s of the said city and town respectively, or any two of them, with * “The position in which they [the English] wished to see Ireland, was that of a dependent province, occupied in growing nnlimited wool for the English looms, with the relations of its inhabitants to one another, and to England so adjusted, that they could never more be politically dangerous. If they could not eradicate Popery, the Government believed that they could establish a system which would condemn the professors of it to helplessness.” — Henry Maxwell (an author of the time) quoted in Fronde’s English in Ireland. Vol. I., p. 293. The Irish elections closed yesterday (11 Dec. 1885), and out of the 103 members assigned to Ireland by the late Franchise Bill, the descendants of those popish peasants, so “condemned to helplessness,” as it was hoped, have sent 85 of their number to represent them in the Imperial Parliament. 512 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH condition of his or her faithfully bearing themselves towards her Majesty, her heirs and successors, or in default of giving such security, such persons shall depart out of the said city, suburbs, and town aforesaid, on or before the 25th day of March, in the Year of Our Lord, 1705 ” Lord Kingsland, Colonel Brown, and other leading Catholics petitioned to be heard by Counsel against the bill. The prayer of the petition was granted, and Sir Theobald Butler, Mr. Malone, and Sir Stephen Rice appeared at the bar of the Lords and Commons as counsel for the Catholics. Sir Theobald Butler was the chief speaker. He took the Act, clause after clause, and proved it was a direct violation of the Articles of Limerick. The answer to all their pleading is, perhaps, the finest specimen of contemptuous insolence extant. The Catholics were told that if they were deprived of the benefits of the Articles of Limerick, it was their own fault, since, by conforming to the estaUished religion, they would be entitled to these and many other benefits ; that therefore they ought not to blame any but themselves : that the passing of that bill into a law was needful for the security of the Kingdom at that juncture, and, in short, that there was nothing in the Articles of Limerick that should hinder them from passing it.* In spite of the ingenuity of the Irish Parliament, the wicked Papists eluded or tried to elude the Act against the growth of Popery, and save themselves from robbery and annihilation. On account of this treasonable villany, an Act of Explanation was considered necessary, and so in 1709 such an Act was prepared, and of course became the law of the land. In its first section, inas- much as the Papists had eluded the Act against the further growth of Popery by granting annuities for lives in tail and fee simple, it is stated — “Be it therefore enacted that no Papist, nor any person or persons in trust for a Papist, shall, from and after the tenth day of May, 1709, be capable to take, have, etc., any annuity for life or term of years determinable on any life or lives, or for any greater or lesser estate any ways chargeable on lands, tenements, etc.” Such things done for and “ perfected ” to any Papist or jPapists, are declared null and void. By Section 3 of the Act against the further growth of Popery, a child that declared itself a Protestant, should, according to law, be supported by the Popish father, and the Court of Chancery, on being appealed to, had power to charge the father’s property with such support. The suspicion, more or less well founded, arose that Debates on the Popery Bill, 2nd. of Anne. IN IRELAND. 513 such fathers concealed or endeavoured to conceal their full income, in order to reduce to the smallest amount the sum exacted from them for that purpose ; but such a proceeding is made impossible by the 3rd Section of the Act of amendment, which lays down that the court has power “ to oblige the said parent or parents to discover, upon oath, the full value of all his, her, or their estate, as well personal as real, clear above incum- brances, and hona fide debts contracted before the enrollment of the Protestant bishop’s certificate in court, declaring the child to be a Protestant.” Thereupon the court is empowered to allot such provisions for the maintenance of such children as seems good to it, the whole being hedged in and protected by provisions against what are termed fraudulent gifts, leases, etc. By the 4th Section of the principal Act it was declared that if the mother became a Protestant, or pretended to do so, the child could be taken and placed with a Protestant, to be brought up as a Protestant at the Popish father’s expense. It did not seem to the framers of the Act of Explanation that this made the wife sufficiently independent of her husband ; it is, therefore, enacted by the 14th Section that the Popish wife who becomes a Pro- testant (or pretends to do so) can get a jointure out of the property of her husband, if he refused or refuses to make such jointure. Thus were the members of every Catholic household bribed to rise in rebellion, and set at defiance the natural head of that household. “ Several Protestant schoolmasters,” says the 16th section of the Act of Explanation, “ to increase their schools, combine with Papists, rather than prosecute Popish schoolmasters, and take them in as ushers, assistants, &c., therefore, be it enacted, that such Catholic usher, assistant, &c., when found out, shall be regarded as a Popish regular clergyman, and prosecuted as such.” This was to increase his punishment, for by an Act of William III., all regulars, when caught, were to be imprisoned, until they could be transported beyond the seas. To return afterwards was high treason, the punishment for which, of course, was death. And that they and others of higher rank might be caught, the discoverer received £50 for an Archbishop, Bishop, or Yicar- General, or any person exercising ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion. The sum for the discovery of a regular priest or friar was £20, and by this law, the same sum was given for a Catholic usher, assistant, &c., and the same punishment awaited them. All those rewards were to he levied ofi the Popish inhabitants of the county in which the parties were arrested. Any person refusing to give testimony about his having heard Mass, where he heard it, &c., got a year’s imprisonment. A common trick of 2 K 514 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH the discoverers was to pretend to be good Catholics, anxious to assist at Mass, and thereby learn from the unsuspecting, where Mass was to be celebrated on a given Sunday or Holiday; for it was seldom twice in the same place ; and guards were always set, lest the minions of authority should surprise the priest and his congregation during the celebration of the sacred mysteries. But these guards were, of course, ineffective against the hypocritical discoverers, who managed to become members of the congregation. Yet was there some protection against them, for a large sheet or screen of some kind was usually suspended between the celebrating priest and the congregation, in the sand pit, or quarry, or cavern in which he celebrated, so that he could not be identified in case of arrest and prosecu- tion. Thus was the old rood-screen turned to - painful utility in Ireland. The Act of Explanation consists of 39 clauses, ail evidently prepared with the most elaborate care. It and the Act against the further growth of Popery, of which it is called an explanation, taken together, contain a system of legal persecution, such as one may look for in vain in the statute book of any civilized country. These Acts gave birth to a new progeny of discoverers. Their occupation was to find out some violation of the acts with regard to the possession or transfer of property by Catholics, bring the unfortunate accused into Court, and if the allegation were proved, be adjudged the owners of the property about which they had made the discovery. In some - cases it became vested in the Crown, but they were of rare occurrence. Those discoverers became infamous in the eyes of every man who had any sense of honour and justice, but they were not only recognized by the Government, but were regarded as important and necessary instruments for the carrying out of the anti-Popery Acts ; and a resolution was put upon the journals of the House of Commons, “ That the prosecuting of, and informing against Papists was an honourable service to the Government.”* Could infamy be turned into honour, and robbery changed to justice and honesty by such a resolution ! In Howard’s Popery Cases, numbering over one hundred, a discoverer is, as far as I can make out, in every instance the plaintiff, and the unfor- tunate rightful owner the defendantf The Court was always in * Com. Joura. 3. 319. t Howard’s book contains only a few specimen cases of the hundreds that were filed in the different Courts, under the Popery Laws, which were in full swing when his book was published in 1775. One of the reported cases happened IN IRELA.ND. 515 favour of the discoverer, and the common constitutional principle, that penal laws are to be interpreted strictly^ was violated in his favour. The reasons given by the judges for such violation are extremely curious. In the case of Ogle and Ogle against Archbold, in which a Protestant woman married a Papist, the Lord Chancellor in giving judgment for the discoverer said, “I think this is a plain forfeiture of these £500 by this marriage, and though this is a penal law, yet it is not to be con- strued as other penal laws, for it is a remedial law also, and made to prevent a mischief from the increase of Papists in this Kingdom.”* * * * § In the case of Brogden against Murray the same principle was laid down by the Attorney-General. Counsellor Daly, for the defence, contended, that the Popery laws, being penal laws, should not, on the ground of being remedial laws, have the wide construction contended for, inasmuch as the 25 Edward III., which is the statute of treason, might be regarded as remedial, but that it was “ never enlarged upon that pre- tence.” This argument was not so much as noticed by the other side If In the case of Clarke against Parsons and others, Baron Momtney laid it down with pious unction, that these Acts “were not to be considered as penal laws, but for the advancement of religion, and to be extended to promote that end.”i It is needless to say that a Papist, pure and simple, could not be a discoverer, but I may state, that a man could not be a dis- coverer if one of his parents was a Papist, “ unless he had been constantly bred a Protestant from twelve years of age; and a Protestant who intermarried with a Papist was incapable of being a discoverer, the Court holding that such a Protestant is a more odious Papist within the Acts, than a real and actual Papist by profession and principle.”§ But nothing can more clearly show the state of the Irish Catholics under the statutes of William III. and Anne than the kindly meant, but timid, halting appeal made by Mr. Howard in his Preface, for some little relaxation of those laws. He says, they have greatly strengthened the Protestant interest in this country, but two years before, in 1773. The work is entitled “ Several Special Cases on the Laws against the further growth of Popery in Ireland.” It was not published with any political or historical object; but solely for the use of lawyers. * Howard’s Popery Cases, p. 18. t Ibid., pp. 22, 23. + Ibid., p. 102. § Ibid., p. 60. 516 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH and “ have been of real great advantage to it;” but he believes “ there is not the same good reason for continuing, as there was for making these laws, and that it might be prudent now to relax them something,” especially as “ they tend to reprobate the mind by encouraging informers, those horrid pests to society and to preserve eternal jealousies and enmity between the subjects to the same Prince, and in the same country; nay, and in families, between father and son, and brother and brother, is (I believe), as undoubtedly true, as it is also, that they con- siderably prevent the improvement and increase of its husbandry, commerce, and trade.” Kind words, indeed. But how sugges- tive are they of the state of the Catholics whom this good- hearted Protestant tried, in merest pity, to relieve.* It might be supposed that the anti-Popery code of William III. and Anne would be regarded as abundantly sufficient to abolish Popery in Ireland, but the handful of timid tyrants who presumed to call themselves the nation, never felt at ease except when they were forging new chains for the Catholics, or strengthening and tightening the old ones. Through the reigns of the three Georges, penal legislation went on with scarcely any intermission. In the second year of George the First’s reign, a law was passed with an apparently harmless, and even a useful object. It was called an Act to make the militia of the kingdom more useful ; but like a velvet paw, sharp claws were masked under this title. The preamble states that no Papist is to be received into the force, either as officer or private. By the lY. and XYIII. Sections it is enacted, that the militia is to be supported by a tax, of which Papists are to pay double as much as Protestants. This was for a force more likely to shoot them down for a slight cause, or for no cause at all, than to afford them protection. For the militia a number of horses were necessary. So to meet this requirement it was enacted that the horses of Papists could be seized, carried away and detained for ten days [evidently to test their qualities], after which the owner was obliged to accept £5 for his horse, if retained ; if not retained, the animal was returned, provided the owner paid down the sum demanded for the trouble of seizing and taking away his horse, and for his keep during the ten days ! If it was proved that a Papist had concealed his horse from the militia authorities, he was lined £10 and cast into jail, “ without trial or mainprize,” until it was paid. Of this sum, one-half went to support the militia, the other to reward the informer. Each Papist allowed to live in a city or town, was bound to find “ an approved Pro- Mr. Howard’s Preface to his Poperj’ Cases. IN IRELAND. 517 testant to become a militia man in bis stead.” If he refused or neglected to do so, his fine was double that of a Protestant iu corresponding circumstances. By 2 George I., c. 19, no Papist could vote for a member of Parliament unless he had taken the oath of Allegiance and Abjuration six months before the election. But this did not necessarily take away from the Catholics the power of voting, as the oath of Abjuration was taken against the Pretender of the House of Stuart, and the bulk of Irish Catho- lics had ceased to have any objection to it. It was reserved for the next reign to completely deprive them of the elective franchise.'* We have just seen what pains and penalties were inflicted on the Catholics under the simple title of ‘‘ a bill to make the militia more useful.” The trick was repeated with regard to the Act which disfranchised them for over sixty years. It is called “ An Act for furthering the election of members of Parliament, and preventing the irregular proceedings of Sheriffs and other officers in electing and returning such members.” Primate Boulter, who was indefatigable in strengthening the Protestant interest in Ireland, and crushing the Papists, is credited with getting the disfranchising clause inserted in the bill. According to the common opinion it was not originally in it. The whole section runs as follows : — VII. “ And for the better pre- venting of Papists from voting in elections, be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no Papist, though not convict, shall be entitled or admitted to vote at the election of any member to serve in Parliament as knight, citizen or burgess, or at the election of any magistrate for any city or other town corporate ; any law, statute, or usage to the contrary notwith- standing.”-!* The Irish Parliament met in December 1727, and passed several very severe measures against the Catholics, but none of them had such deadly and far-reaching effects as the famous dis- franchising clause of the'above-named Act. It was very secretly managed and we have only traditional information respecting it. It is, however, recorded in the Journals of the House that on the 9th of February the bill was reported as having been approved of by a Committee of the whole House, ‘‘ with some amend- * The oath of Abjuration was passed in the last year of the reign of William III. There is a curious error in the marginal summary of the Act of 2 George I., C. 19, the oath of Supremacy being inserted there (which Catholics could not take) instead of the oath of Abjuration^ which is in the Section itself. t George II. Irish Statutes, Vol. V., Cap. 9. This Act passed the Commons, 30th April, 1728, O.S.j the House of Lords, 30th April, and received the Royal Assent 6th May. 518 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Wientsy Of those amendments the disfranchising clause is believed to be one. Many writers think they find some explana- tion or excuse for the passing of this clause, in the fact that it was passed under a false title ; but they deceive themselves, for it would have passed under any title. The bill, moreover, like every other bill, was twice read in each house, clause after clause, by the clerk at the table, before it was finally assented to. So that although the title was calculated to deceive the public, it could not deceive the members of either House of Parliament. There is another and a better reason for the secrecy : Catholic powers in friendly relations with England sometimes remonstrated through their Ambassadors, against the Penal Laws passed against its Catholic subjects. Boulter, in one of his letters,^ tells us it was they who were meant to be deceived by the title, and the Primate was just the man to manage such a piece of State-craft. Further, the Bill was passed in both Houses unanimously ; for in the Journals of the House of Lords there is no dissent recorded, as would have been the case had there been any such to record ; and in the Commons’ Journals we are informed, in terms, that the Bill passed their House “ nemine contradicente” Moved by the fears of a war with France Parliament restored the elective franchise to the Catholics in 1793, after they had been politically dead for two full generations. Is it any wonder that their descendants exult and glory in their triumphs of to-day ?t From the beginning of the battle, proselytizing education is to be found side by side with coercive legislation. Elizabeth established diocesan free schools for Irish Catholics, who, the Act says, “lived in a rude and barbarous state, not under- standing that Almighty God hath, by His divine law, forbidden,” &c. Half the cost of those schools was to be supplied by the * Letter to Duke of Newcastle, March 7th, 1727. t It has been truly said that Boulter’s position in Ireland was more political than ecclesiastical. He was Lord- Justice thirteen times, and his recommenda- tions were accepted in England as oracles. He did much for the English and Protestant interest in this country, by promoting legislation against the Papists, by getting churches, especially chapels of ease, built, and the income of small livings increased. Still that hateful, but indomitable, thing, Popery, held its ground. Writing to the Duke of Newcastle he says : — “The bulk of our clergy have neither parsonage-houses nor glebes, and yet till we can get more churches or cbapels, and more resident clergymen, instead of getting ground of the Fapists, we must lose to them, as, in fact, we do in many places, the descendants of many of Cromwell’s officers and soldiers here being gone off to Popery.” — Letters, p. 179. Dub. Ed. IN IRELAND. 519 Ordinaries of the dioceses in which they were, the other by the dioceses. Next came the Royal free schools of James L, founded in connection with his scheme for the plantation of Ulster. They were mildly described as being for the education of youth i n learningand religion. Later on it was enacted that the escheated lands for their support were to be conveyed to the bishops of the various dioceses in which they were located. From time to time several others were called into existence at Longford, Banagher, Carysford in Co. Wicklow, Clogher, &c. Between 1608 and 1669 many private persons founded charity schools, the most important of which were those of Erasmus Smith. He was an alderman of London and a grocer. Like hundreds of Englishmen, he, or those whose heir he was, lent money to the Government to embody and pay an army for the reduction of Ireland. The security for the money was, as we have elsewhere seen, forfeited lands in Ireland in proportion to the sums advanced. The investment was a good one, for the lands were given at a very low rate ; and, land rising continually in value, Erasmus Smith’s foundations in turn became very rich ones.* Erasmus Smith was a charitable man, who tried to do good according to his lights. He founded three schools in different places on his own property, and endowed them with portions of it. There was one near the town of Athlone, to which he assigned 403 acres of land ; another in the Isles of Arran, with the larger area of 1467 acres (on account, we may suppose, of the poorness of the soil) ; and the third at Galway, with 1011 acres. In these schools, he says, were to be educated “poor children inhabiting upon any part of his lands in Ireland who should be brought up in the fear of God and good literature, and to speak the English tongue, and for other good ends.” The chief of the other good ends was to make them Protestants, by teaching them Archbishop Ussher’s Catechism. He established nine other schools in various places, to prepare children on his property for the University and Trinity College. Nor did he neglect the poor in the same localities, for they were to be taught “ to read and write and cast accompts as found capable.” The visitation and government of the schools were entrusted to a Board of thirty-two governors, with power to elect their suc- cessors. A considerable number of the first thirty-two were Protestant clergymen. One was Henry J ones, a bishop, and after- wards Scoutmaster- General to Cromwell in Ireland. This post. * I find seven persons named Smith, all of London, in the list of adventurers, but not one named Erasmus, so that this must have been a fancy name assumed by the donor, or perhaps he was only the heir of an Adventurer. 520 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH says Ware, was “not decent for one of his function.” He was also brother to the famous Michael Jones, who defended Dublin against Ormonde, and gave him the crushing defeat at Rath- mines. The governors, even in the lifetime of the founder, began to depart from his intentions, and from the written regulations which he gave for their guidance ; so that in June, 1682, we find him addressing them as follows: — “My Lords and Gentlemen, my end in founding the three schooles was to propagate the Protestant faith according to the Scriptures, avoiding all superstition, as the charter and the bye-laws and rules established do direct. Therefore it is the command of His Majesty to catechise the children out of Primate Ussher’s Catechism, and to expound the same unto them, which I humbly desire may be observed, on penalty of forfeiting their places My Lords, my designe is not to reflect upon any, only I give my judgment, why those schools are so consumptive, which was and is, and will be (if not prevented) the many Popish schooles, their neighbours, which, as succers, do starve the tree. If parents will exclude their children because prayers, catechism, and exposition is commanded, I cannot help it, for to remove that barre, is to make them seminaries of Popery.” But when Erasmus Smith was dead and gone, the governors obtained Acts of Parliament to change and modify his intentions. The money accruing from his foundations (always increasing), lay dormant in large sums, was misapplied or malversated; so that when the governors of his schools appeared before the Endowed School Commission, appointed in 1854, they made a very sorry figure, indeed. They had no satisfactory answers to give, when questioned by the Commissioners; they had no satisfactory accounts to produce. All this, however, was in favour of the Catholics, for had the governors managed the large means in their hands with the spirit and energy which the founder hoped they would exhibit, they might have inflicted a great deal more injury on Catholicity in Ireland than they have done.* Many others I can do little more than name. The Blue Coat Hospital was founded by Charles II. on the petition of the Lord Mayor and citizens of Dublin. The Foundling Hospital for deserted children was established in 1704. Three Classical Seminaries was founded by the Duke of Ormonde, Richard * Erasmus Smith’s Schools : their History and Objects. By the Rev. Wm. Oibson, Professor of Christian Ethics in the Presbyterian College, Belfast, p. 21 et seq. An abridgment of the Report of her Majesty’s Commissioners into Unendowed Schools in Ireland. By the Very Rev. A. W. West. IN IRELAND. 521 Moore and the Countess of Orkney, a lady who had great influence with William III., and on whom he bestowed 95,000 acres of land in Ireland. Alderman Preston founded a school at Navan and another at Ballyroan. Bishop Foy left the residue of his property for the support of a school at Waterford. Hugh Rainey, Rt. Hon. Wm. Conolly, and Andrew Wilson were also founders of schools, and in 1769 there were fifty-two Charter Schools in Ireland.^ So that the remark of a certain English bagman was apt enough when he said, that “Ireland had plenty of Protestant warehouses.” I cannot pass from the Charter Schools without a few remarks. A petition to the Crown was sent through the Protestant Primate, that schools should be more general and that the children of Ireland \i.e. the Catholic children of Ireland] should be instructed in the Protestant religion This led in 1733 to the establish- ment of the Charter Schools, which were to be supported by estates given for the purpose and by donations. The donations, or rather endowments, were many and large. In 1737, Madam Mercer left her estates to trustees to pay £100 a year to the sick poor of certain parishes in Dublin, and the remainder for Protestant children. “ It is deserving of notice that most of the endowments from 1733 to 1781 had for their object the bringing over to the Protestant religion the children of the poor, and preserving them in the same by apprenticing them to Protestants.’y They did not of course bring the children to Charter Schools by force ; the theory was that they were to be taken in by the consent of their parents. And when miserably poor parents saw grand imposing buildings like colleges (as the Charter Schools were) in which their children were to be lodged, boarded, clothed, and finally taught trades, the inducements were sometimes too great for them. Still the poor people resisted bravely, and the schools seem to have remained unfilled; so that in 1749 we find the Incorporated Society, as the managers of those schools were styled, got passed a Kidnapping Act, as it may be called, which made them the guardians of all begging children, with power to take them up and convey them to the Charter Schools^. There is a preface prefixed to Rev. Mr. Dallas’s “Story of the Irish Church Missions to the Roman Catholics,” by four gentle- * It is hardly necessary to state that all these were proselytizing schools, where Catholics who would conform, were far more welcome than Protestants. As far as I can discover, Protestants, as such, were not admitted to the Charter Schools at all. t Abridgment of the Endowed Schools Commission, by Very Rev. Dean West, pp. 18 and 19. Hodges & Smith, Dublin, 1862. t Ibid., p. 18. 522 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH men who call themselves “ Members of the English Church.” It contains the following passage: “In 1733 the Charter Schools were established under trustees, supported by estates purchased, and large donations, the motto of the corporation being ‘Heligione et Lahore.’ The arms were a plough, spade, and an open bible. This was a new sign in Erin’s Isle. The priests were furious, refusing the sacraments, and using every means in their power to keep the children away ; but these schools carried all before them, and opened a door which all the power and artifice of Rome has not been able to shut.”* This is a curious passage to print, as it was printed in 1875. A supernatural power must have, some- where or another, laid the four worthy members of the English Church in a trance for a long time, as will immediately appear. The celebrated philanthropist, Mr. Howard, made an inspection of all the Charter Schools in Ireland. Before commencing his inquiries he had received in Dublin a statement from the Incor- porated Society, that 2,100 children were maintained in their schools. He found, however, there were only 1,400, and as they were boarding schools, the numbers in attendance did not admit of great fluctuation. Mr. Howard immediately published a very unfavourable account of the Charter Schools, with some details of the various abuses he had discovered in them. This gave rise to a discussion, which caused the Inspector-General of prisons to make an inspection of a large number of these schools in 1786 and 1787, and Mr. Howard repeated his inspection in the latter year. The investigation led to the appointment of a com- mittee of the Lower House, before which he and the Inspector- General and other witnesses were examined, and the result was a complete corroboration of the statements of Mr. Howard, In the latter year the Lord Lieutenant appointed Commissioners for the various schools. They reported of all the schools, royal, diocesan, &c., that “ with very few exceptions they were of little use to the public, and totally inadequate to the expectations that might have been justly formed from their large endowments.” They further reported that “ in many of the Charter Schools, the clothing, cleanliness, food, health, and education of the children have been shamefully neglected.”t Thus it was that “ they carried all before them.” In the light of these reports and many others, it is only just to admit that had the officials who were intrusted with such enormous funds, been only true to their trust, they could, humanly * Preface, p. xiv. T Ibid., p. 20. IN IRELAND. 523 speaking, have been far more formidable to the Catholic Church in Ireland than they proved themselves to be. The result of the discussion that arose out of Mr. Howard’s visitation of the Charter Schools was to cause the Governnient of the day to make important concessions to the Catholics in the matter of education. The Societies established with the avowed object of making Ireland a Protestant country were very numerous. The bare enumeration of them would fill more than a page of this work, I can only devote a small space to two or three of them. It has happened a few times since I became a priest on the mission that some charitable English person has sent me a copy of the New Testament through the post. I did not ridicule or despise the act, but I thought it revealed a state of ignorance on the part of Englishmen in reference to the Irish priesthood which I regarded as very sad indeed. The person who took the trouble to send me the New Testament must have persuaded himself that I had never possessed a copy of that inspired volume at all, because, in any other supposition, he must have concluded I would be, at least, as likely to read my own, as one sent me through the post. Moreover, the pious donors of these New Testaments, so anxious to enlighten others, seem to have been strangely ignorant of the efforts which had been made, and are still being made to supply, in the most abundant manner, not priests only, but all the Catholics of Ireland with the word of God. The Hibernian Bible Society was founded in 1806, and is still active and flourishing. The 49 th Annual Report of this institu- tion is now before me. In it is acknowledged £6,715 5s. lid., as the receipts of the year. Taking that as an average income, the total received in fifty years (the length of time it had been in existence) would be over £387,484. Nor does the Society seem to have misspent, or lavished the money confided to it, as hap- pened in many other cases ; for the result of its labours, since its foundation, is given as follows, at p. 102 of the Report : — Bibles printed and distributed, 1,077,380 ; New Testaments and Portions, 2,160,284; Total, 3,237,664. But all these were not given away as grants. Some were sold at cost price, some at a reduced price, some given as grants. Taking the present Report as an average one, the grants have been very liberal. Out of 21,516 Bibles, Testaments, and Portions printed in the year, the free grants amounted to 15,066. With regard to Bouay Bibles and Testaments, they have been stereotyped over and over again, and published by the thousand at the lowest possible prices. As long as well meaning people, like those who sent me copies 524 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH of the New Testament show such lamentable ignorance about us Irish Catholics, how can we hope to be treated in a just and enlightened spirit by England ? Is it any wonder that many of us are tempted to believe that a large portion of the people of that country shut their eyes and their ears to every explanation we give and every defence we make, preferring to remain in wilful ignorance about us, for some reason which the Author does not pretend to account for ? For nearly half a century the island of Achill occupied no inconsiderable place in the public mind, on account of the proselytizing onslaught made upon the faith of its inhabitants. The Protestant Mission was commenced there in 1834, by the Rev. Edward Nangle. A “ Settlement,” as it was called, was established on a farm of 130 acres for the staff of the Mission, and the Popish converts. The island is a short distance to the west of Mayo, between Blacksod bay and Clew bay, and is separated from the mainland by a narrow strip of sea called the Sound. It is 16 miles in length, and 7 in breadth, and about 80 miles in circumference ; the whole comprising 46,401 statute acres, and containing, at the time Mr. Nangle’s Mission began, 5,277 inhabitants. Whether wisely or not, Mr. Nangle attacked the doctrines of the Catholic Church in the most offensive way, grossly misrepresenting them, and then holding them up, so misrepresented, to contempt and ridicule. After some time he established a newspaper, by means of which, and by his letters to more. influential journals, he managed to keep himself well before the public, both here and in England. His chief literary stock-in-trade consisted of denunciations of Popish superstition and idolatry, accounts of his efforts against the Romanists, and his great success in converting them ; to complete the blessed work, no more was required than increased contributions. The full title of his newspaper was : — “The Achill Missionary Herald and Western Witness. A monthly journal exhibiting the principles and progress of Christ’s Kingdom, and exposing the errors and abominations of that Section of the rival Kingdom of Antichrist, commonly called the Papacy.” In the title pages of the different volumes, rude wood-cuts are inserted, the meaning of which is given on the back of the title. The illustration in the volume before me consists of two clumsy figures, said to have been worshipped by the Hindoos : between them is a full sized representation of a host, such as is usually prepared for^ conse- cration in the Sacrifice of the Mass. I refrain from quoting Mr. Nangle’s full description of this picture ; it is too gross and revolting ; but its meaning is, that there is as much idolatry in worshipping what Mr. Nangle, with insulting blasphemy, calls IN IRELAND. 525 “ the Wafer/’ as there is in worshipping the molten figures of the Hindoos. Mr. Nangle was an educated man and a clergyman, and must have known that the real presence of our divine Lord in the Eucharist was a doctrine held for ages by the most enlightened nations of Europe, and by many of the most learned Protestants from the time of the Reformers. It ill became him, therefore, to place in the title page of his newspaper such an astounding picture, as the one above described. To have done so showed reliance on the ignorance of his readers. There is difB.culty in obtaining correct information about the proselytising missions in Ireland, the habit of exaggeration is so universal in every report one can procure. In a book entitled “ Connemara Past and Present,” published in 1853, by the Rev. J. Denham Smith, of Kingstown, it is stated that before the Famine, Achill had a population of 6,000, which was reduced by that terrible scourge to 4,000. He further says that “ of all the poor inhabitants of the West of Ireland the very poorest were the people of Achill and he adds that Protestants (all of whom were once Romanists) now number half the entire population p.e. numbered 2,000], and that nearly two thousand of the young flood the several educational establishments [! ! !] which lift up their heads over some 36,000 acres of land, a large proportion of which is springing into fine cultivation. A few lines earlier he said that 20 years before his visit the island was one vast tract of moorland, “ yielding nothing but grouse and Jlsk/’ Passing over the wonderful fact of fish growing on a moorland, it is evident from Mr. Smith’s statistics that more than the young must have gone to school. If nearly two thousand, out of a population of two or even four thousand flooded the schools, young and old, man, woman, and child, must have gone to school ; and if so who tilled the soil ? Whose labour made the moorland of Achill smile with “ fine cultivation In 1852, Mr. Dallas announces Rev. Mr. Nangle’s retirement from Achill, in the following words : — “ After so many years of anxiety, and of continual opposition from the priests around him, Mr. Nangle’s health had become unequal to the exertions by which this important mission had been planted and nurtured, and on which the blessing of God had so graciously descended. He therefore applied to the Society for Irish Church Missions, to undertake the superintendence of the work. Considerable difficulty attended this arrangement, as the rule of the Society forbade any mixture of temporal relief or secular assistance, and * Pp. 119-20. 52G THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH the direct missionary agency was the only branch that could be handed over to them. Arrangements had to he made for all the more secular institutions, and the spiritual work of the mission was then undertaken by the Committee of the Irish Church Missions/’* The Irish Church Mission people show great anxiety in their Reports, to impress us with their rule against using temporal means to gain converts.! The fact of Mr. Nangle having used such means created a great obstacle, Mr. Dallas tells us, to their taking up the Achill Mission from him. Hence, to get over the difficulty, “arrangements had to be made.” What arrange- ments ? Clearly, some other agency, besides that of the Church Missions, should be employed to give the same material aid to the converts, which Mr. Nangle had done before. If Catholics had used this kind of special pleading, it is more than probable that Mr. Dallas would denounce it as rank Jesuitism. What, in the name of common sense, did the converts care about the fine distinction of this agency or that ? They received their clothes and rations as before for listening to the proselytisers. If they had not done this, they would have been deprived of both. What a charming loop-hole for the consciences of high-souled spiritual men, “ who look above and beyond all human agencies ; they are permitted to be fellow-workers with God.”J 1 now proceed to give, on most reliable authority, the present state of the proselytizing Mission in Achill. “ It is,” says my informant, “ to some small extent in existence, but what remains of it is amalgamated with and absorbed in the Irish Society, which, as is generally known, was established in 1818, for promoting the Scriptural Education and Religious Instruction of the Irish-speaking population, chiefly through the medium of their own language.” Such is the title of the Society, but in giving it this title, its founders stated its real object very mildly indeed. It was and is, that Irish Catholics, residing in Irish-speaking parts of the country, might be proselytized and made Protestants by bible-readers who had acquired their language. My informant proceeds, “So, virtually, the Achill Mission, so far as conversions go, is a thing of the past. It has however, a good deal of this world’s wealth, as two-thirds of the * Story of the Irish Church Missions, p. 117, 1 1 have looked in vain for this rule in the published reports of the Society. In every printed report we find a series of eight rules called “The Constitution of the Society,” and another series of seven called “ The Object and Regulations of the Society,” but in neither is there a word against giving material aid to converts. X Report for 1885, p. 9. IN IRELAND. 527 Island is owned by the trustees of that Mission, for which for a considerable time they received from the Catholic people in rent, £1,800 a year, to be used, of course, in proselytizing them- selves and their children. (!) Within the last two or three years, the Land Commissioners have reduced this large rental to £1,200 a year. This property was purchased for the Mission in 1852, principally through the Rev. Mr. Nangle, and mostly by English subscriptions.” The “ quasi-converts, of whom Mr. jSTangle boasted so much, have not remained with the proselytizers ; their conversion was more apparent than real. They joined them to keep body and soul together — to keep themselves and their families from starvation, — ^and when better times came round, they returned to their former faith. This applies both to parents and children.” “ Bribery, pure and simple, was the means adopted by Nangle and his agents, which took the shape of food, clothes, house and land — tempting advantages by which to seduce a famine, stricken people.” “The parish of Achill, a good portion of which is on the mainland, has a population of about 7,500 ; of this total the Protestants number about 300, of whom 100 are coastguards, mostly English, who are frequently here to-day and away to-morrow. Another 50 are ex-coastguards who have settled down in the place, after having retired on pension ; a doctor and bis family, and a few other strangers; another 100 consists of the two Protestant ministers of the parish, Bible readers, ordi- nary teachers, Irish teachers, inspectors, &c. All those are strangers. Thus, deducting the 250 strangers above accounted for, there are about 50 natives of Achill in the Protestant Settle- ment, who are either Achill Soupers, or the children of Achill Soupers.” The idea in that part of the Province, near Achill, and in fact throughout a great part of it, is, that since the foundation of the mission in 1834 — more than half a century ago, — sums that appear to outsiders quite fabulous, have been expended on it. We have been assured on most respectable authority, that the total outlay in Achill has reached the enormous figure of half a million sterling ! It shakes one’s credulity, but it is not at all the highest estimate that has reached the Author. One thing is clear, that a very large sum has been expended there. “ It is said that Mr. Nangle frequently told his friends, that had it not been for the Famine of ’47, his mission in Achill would have been a failure.” Those so-called Protestants of Achill are fast going into 528 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Plymouthism — (^.e. becomiog Plymouth Brethren) a sect known in Dublin and its vicinity, some years ago, as Darbyites, from the name of their founder, Mr. Darby, a Protestant clergyman. The Ieish Chukch Missions to the Eoman Catholics, WITH brief notices OF SOME OTHER MISSIONS. The Bev. Alex. Dallas was the founder of the Irish Church Missions to the Homan Catholics — a society founded in London in 1846. He was a retired soldier, having served under Wellington in the Peninsular war. In the beginning of “The Story of the Irish Church Missions,” he says, that this was an admirable training to fit him for his future missionary career. There is no information given as to any other preparation for the work, but the reader is left to infer that he had an extra- ordinary call. The soldiering was, it is said, “ the training of the natural man ; but there was a deeper spiritual training needed, ere this vessel of mercy could be filled for the Maker’s use, in the great work of these Missions. Under the hand of the Befiner, the spirit was to be chastened and moulded afresh for his service ; and out of the lowest depths of self-abasement he was to have the call to a work, which in every step has mag- nified the Sovereign grace that had prepared the instrument.” Whoever will seek, in the above mystifying passage, for any clue to the way in which the ex-Peninsular soldier was trained and educated for his Spiritual Mission, will seek in vain. He does not speak of study of any kind, so that his wish seems to be, that his readers would believe that, like St. Paul, he became a vessel of election in a moment, for his next words after the above quotation are — “ Go in thy might, have the power of that com- mission.” Early in his Irish career, Mr. Dallas preached twenty-one sermons on the Second Advent in Cork, after which to rest and refresh himself, he went to Killarney. Sunday came, and he, of course, went to church. “ The sermon pained him. It was a great mistake, from the text, ‘ If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments.’ He longed, he tells us, to open the Gospel of Christ, and rectify the mistake. The mistake, Mr. Dallas leaves to infer, was in the sermon not in the text. But the preacher having chosen the above text we may well ask our readers, lay and clerical, what could he do but tell his congre- gation what our Divine Lord told the young man in the Gospel, that if they would enter into life they must keep the command- ments ? There is no other recommendation or comment what- ever in it. Mr. Dallas, therefore, in undertaking to correct the preacher, corrects our Divine Lord himself. “ He longed,” he IN IRELAND. 529 says, “ to open the Gospel of Christ, and rectify the mistake that is, he longed to open the Gospel of Christ to correct Christ himself ! And he did. He managed to get into the pulpit at the evening service, where, to use his own words, “he laid open the Lord’s way of enabling the sinner * to enter into life,’ and offered salvation to his hearers through faith in Christ Jesus.” It is unpleasant to make use of the sacred name so often, but we are obliged to ask, did not Mr. Dallas offer salvation to the sinner through faith in the same Christ Jesus, who had said in the text of the morning sermon, “ If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments ”? Surely it would be impious to say that those words of our Lord exclude faith ; so far from it, they suppose it. We are bound to love God above all things ; but the proof of this love is the keeping of the commandments. ‘‘ If you love me,” says our Lord, “ keep my commandments.” — St. John xiv. 15. And the Apostle says, “Faith if it have not works is dead in itself.” And again speaking more emphatically, Wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead ?”* So much for reading the Bible without note, or comment, or guide ; so much for the divine right of private judgment. Verily, Mr* Dallas, soldier and divine, you were a precious apostle for the conversion of benighted Papists in Ireland. In 1852 Nassau William Senior was on a visit to the late Dr. Whately, Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, and in one of their conversations he asked his Grace, to what cause the numerous conversions to Protestantism then occurring were to be attributed. Among several causes the Archbishop said, that the explanation given by the Homan Catholics was, that the conversions were purchased. This Dr. Whately did not credit, but he related the following anecdote to Mr. Senior : — “ An old woman went to one of my clergy and said, ‘ I am come to surrender to your Reverence — and I want the leg of mutton and the blanket.’ ‘ What mutton and blanket f said the clergyman. ‘I have scarcely enough of either for myself and my family, and certainly none to give. Who could have put such nonsense into your head V * Why, sir,’ she said, ‘Father Sullivan told us, that the converts got each a leg of mutton and a blanket ; and as I am famished and starving with cold, I thought that God would forgive me for getting them.’ ” He then adds that those who spread the calumny were challenged to prove it, but did not attempt to do so.f * St. James Epist., chap. II. t In these conversations Dr. Whately, who always posed as a Liberal, and was made Archbishop of Dublin by a Liberal Government, enunciates many most groundless charges against the priests with all the bitterness of a souper. The reader will see the Bribery practised by the Society of Church Missions, 2 L 5S0 TJHE BATTLE OF THE FAITH Having mentioned some other probable causes for the conver- sions of Catholics to Protestantism at that particular time (the time immediately succeeding the famine), Dr. Whately said, “ The great instrument of conversion, however, is the diffusion of scriptural education.”* The unlimited confidence which Protes- tants have always expressed in the universal diffusion of the Holy Scriptures, and the reading of them without note or com- ment by all classes, has been the puzzle and surprise of many. The Bible is not a book easily understood, even by well educated persons ; if it were there need not have been such voluminous commentaries, Protestant and Catholic, upon it. The well-known Dr. Adam Clarke's commentary is a library in itself, which to all appearance, it would take the best part of a lifetime to read. And yet how can anyone deduce a religion from the Bible without mastering its contents ? and how is that mastery to be attained ? The most learned men — Episcopalians, Baptists, Anabaptists, Pedohaptists, and hundreds of others among the various grades of Dissenters, from Unitarians to Fifth Monarchy men, have asserted that they found their peculiar and widely different creeds in the inspired volume. Are they all in the right ? They cannot be, for the Bible is the Word of God, and God is Truth and cannot contradict himself. Now if the learned differ about many of the most important portions of Holy Scripture, how could a Kings- court labourer or an Achill or Galway fisherman interpret it, and deduce the true body of Christian doctrine from it ? and even if its meaning were as clear as noon-day, what is that to the illiterate peasant who cannot read, as numbers of the converts made by Protestant proselytizers in Ireland were unable to do ? The adversaries of the Catholic Church say it is founded on mere human authority — that of the priests. Surely the poor Souper proselytes can get no religion out of the Bible except by the aid of bible readers, who can scarcely be said to be much, if .^t All, their superiors in information ; {and yet they and 'their employers denounce all human authority in matters of religion. An illiterate convert therefore accepts the new religion on the worst kind of authority, that of ignorant bible readers. One of the oft repeated, well worn charges against Catholics is, that Popery and ignorance always went hand-in-hand ; in fact, that Popery kept its ground by means of ignorance, and could not exist where enlightenment and education prevailed. But this theory was utterly destroyed when the Oxford movement became brought out and exposed further on, in the notice of the correspondence between E,ev. Mr. Webster, of Cork, and the heads of the Society. ♦ Senior, Vol. 2, p. 63 IN IRELAND. 531 an undeniable fact. The greatest lights of Eagland’s greatest University failed to see Popery in the same light as that in which the proselytisers pretended to see it. How was this to be met ? Most Rev. Dr. Whately, Archbishop of Dablin, rose equal to the occasion, and in a Charge delivered about 1852 or 1853 undertook to prove that the Oxford conversions were no triumphs to the Catholic Church, because, says he, “ the conversion of a peasant ivho uses his reason, is a greater proof in favour of the truth of a religion, than that of a learned man, ^vllO lays aside reason, and follows his feelings and imagination'’* It is pitiable to see a man like Dr. Whately, a distinguished scholar, a learned divine, and the author of a famous work on logic, obliged, in his sore need, thus to beg the question in so evident a manner. What right had he to assume that the peasant, in the case, used his reason, and that the Oxford convert did not ? But it comes with a bad grace from the proselytizers to say, that the Catholic Religion thrives only where the people are ignorant, and that it sustains itself and prospers, by keeping them so. The charge applies with far greater force to the prose- lytizers themselves. Recall their principal Missionary efforts in Ireland, and you will find they have chosen for the scene of their labours the most illiterate and most destitute localities in the whole country ; they were always ready to take advantage of any special visitation, such as the Cholera and the Famine. To begin with Dingle, Mrs. Thompson, the historian of proselytism in that place, tells us that before the year of 1830, the country around Dingle had sunk into insignificance and poverty “ until Dingle was only known as the name of a place unknown." In proof of this she appends a footnote, containing a common saying, in many parts of Ireland, — ‘‘ I wish you were in Dingle-y-Couch ; being a cant phrase meaning totally out of the way.”t But the terrible visitation of cholera reached Dingle in an aggravated form, and religious zeal, long dormant, according to Mrs. Thompson, sprung up in consequence. Lord Yentry appointed a Chaplain to himself at a salary of £150 a year — a chaplain he did not want, not being resident in Dingle at all ; but the appointment was required for the work the cholera was expected to produce. Then there was the Rev. Mr. Goodman, curate of Dingle, and there was Mr. Gubbins, curate of some outlying parishes,J with scarcely * The Author cannot lay his hand on the charge in question at present, bu t he made the above extract from it shortly after it was published. t Introduction to Brief Account of Change of Religion, &c., &c,, p. 4. By Mrs. D. P. Thompson. t They were Ventry, Dunorlin, Keelmakedur and Kilquane. Dingle was attended to by Mr. Goodman. 532 TPIE BATTLE OF THE FAITH a Protestant in any of them, except a few coastguards, who, it was Mrs. Thompson’s hope, would form the nucleus of a future congre- gation. The three clergymen above named formed a missionary staff, and having no congregations of their own, they, in the most generous and disinterested way, declared that Catholics as well as Protestants were their parishioners.^ A very convenient doctrine this was at a time when the people were in such dreadful straits, and when orphans were growing numerous with none to help them. Although Mrs. Thompson modestly passes over the fact, she had her hand in the work, for she established an orphanage for girlsf — a kind and charitable thing in itself ; but it meant proselytism, pure and simple ; for Mrs. Thompson, judging from her own booh, was one of the greatest proselytizers that ever crossed our path. Her husband was Lord Yentry’s agent, and a J.P. moreover. He and Mrs. Thompson occupied the mansion of the absent Lord Ventry, whence they ruled with absolute sway. The Catholics were prostrate before them, whilst the soupers basked in their smiles, and were rampant on account of their support.^ I saw, many years ago, what I was assured was an exact copy of the subscriptions to the Dingle Soupers. I would not now venture to indicate the sum total, but it was very large. Pev. Mr. Gayer, Lord Yentry’s chaplain, made a collection through England. A Miss Mahon took up the work of collecting subscriptions for the founding of a “ Dingle Colony.” Before the end of 1840 she was enabled to place in the hands of trustees money sufficient to build fifteen cottages. They were proceeded with, but not quite finished, when Mr. Monck Mason (as sound a Protestant as ever breathed) wrote a letter in the Christian Examiner, condemning the rewarding of converts in the manner projected by Miss Mahon. This he did on three grounds — 1. the expense, which was calculated to drain resources hitherto flowing into the Irish Society ; 2. ‘ the embarrassment — becoming daily more inconvenient — arising from new objects being proposed to the public of Great Britain demanding their bounty for the same ends and 3. that there was no warrant in Scripture for any such mode of rescuing converts from the perse- cution, which was the predicted result of their conversion, and the bearing of which persecution was the truest test of their sincerity. Bev. Mr. Gayor, Lord Yentry’s chaplain, responded in * Brief Account, &c., p. 10. t Lewis’s Top. Dictionary of Ireland. Art. Dingle. t It was in Dingle the proselytizers and the converts were first called Soupers. This sobriquet was given to them by Rev. John (afterwards Archdeacon) O’Sullivan, then stationed there. IN IRELAND. 533 a lengthy letter which does not seem to have been a satisfactory reply to Mr. Monck Mason. His reply to Mr. Mason’s third objection is, that* * * § no convert gets the cottage and the bit of ground until they are well tried, and that these temporal advantages are not held out as inducements to Catholics to become Protestants. This reasoning seems very inconclusive ; for when poor starving Catholics see that people who were as poor as themselves become possessed of snug cottages with ground attached to each, merely because they become Protestants, the conclusion is easily arrived at, that they will, within a limited time, get the same for leaving the old and joining the new religion. The trial of their sincerity, Mr. Gayor admits, is sometimes but two years, and occasionally even less.* Mrs. Thompson, of course, had a word to say on the subject. She says : “ We feel that it is hard (indeed almost impossible) for those not actually engaged in a work of this kind in Ireland, to understand fully the necessity for the temporal relief to converts from Popery. One thing is certain that no one ever condemned it but those who were never practically engaged in a similar work, and it is equally certain, that all the Lord’s servants engaged in Missionary enterprise, whether at home or abroad, among Heathens, Jews, Turks or Heretics, are obliged to attend to their temporal wants also. The Apostles and Primitive Church did so, and those who entrust to us money for the Lord’s work here, are willing we should do likewise.”f This passage opens the way to much controversy, which we have no intention to enter upon. It may, however, be remarked that Mr. Dallas, and the Irish Church Missions’ people held in theory at least, that no material aid should be given to converts, and that it was never given by them. I A book entitled “ Memorandums made in Ireland in the Autumn of 1852,” throws considerable light on the working of the Irish Church Missions at that period.§ Like every other honest inquirer after truth, he found it impossible to get any reliable statistics as to the actual number of conversions from Catholicity to Protestantism. He says: “I cannot obtain from the * Letter in Brief Account, &c., p. 120. Mr. Mason compiled a valuable History of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin. t Brief Account, &c., p. 221. t But see the quotations which follow immediately, from Dr. Forbes’ book * and the correspondence between Mr. Fade and Mr. Webster, Chancellor of Cork. § Memorandums made in Ireland in the Autumn of 1852, by John Forbes, M.D. F.R.S., Hon. D.C.L. Oxon., Physician to her Majesty’s Household. Dr. Forbes was afterwards knighted by the Queen. 534 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH publications of the society any positive statistics as to the amount of conversions from Catholicism effected by it, beyond what is supplied by the following statements, taken from one of the publications, of date, November, 1852 : — ‘ The Bishop of Tuam, in October, 1849, confirmed 401 converts; in September, 1851, he confirmed 712 converts; in July and August, 1852, he confirmed 535 converts, making a total of 1648 In the district of West Galway, there are now between 5,000 and 6,000 converts in connection with this Society Nearly 5,000 children of converts or Romanists daily attend the Scriptural Schools of the Society.’ ” “ Although well aware, as already remarked, of the great con- version movement in this part of Ireland, and consequently not disposed to overlook a matter so interesting and important, it is nevertheless true, that its existence would have been hardly revealed to me by anything that fell under my own immediate observation as T passed through the country. Everything that I saw and heard indicated the presence of the same Catholic people, and the same Catholic institutions which I had seen, hitherto in every district, town, and village, visited by me in Ireland. I saw and heard very little more of Protestants or Protestantism than elsewhere, except I made special inquiries of those specially interested in the question. This struck me the more forcibly from the fact of my being previously acquainted with the statis- tical statements given above, and because I had read, in one of the publications of the Society, the following announcement : — * The Society's missions in West Galway, have been the means of rendering a district, extending fifty miles in breadth, charac- teristically Protestant, which but a few years ago was charac- teristically Romish! “ Without attempting to call in question the accuracy of the statistics given by the Society, as quoted above, — though all statisticians know the danger of dealing with round numbers — I must take the liberty of sajing, that the statement just quoted in Italics must be regarded rather as the expression of an amiable and sanguine enthusiasm, commingling the hopes of the future with the over-appreciation of the present, than as the sober definition of a reality. Even if the statistics were rigidly accurate, and we were to take for granted that the number of actual converts was 5,000 or 6,000, how could we distribute such a small number as this over a space of fifty miles, so as to give the district the character attributed to it in our Italics ? or how could we reconcile this statement with the actual population of the district ? I do not know how large a portion of the county of Galway may be comprehended in the fifty miles mentioned, but it must be a considerable portion ; as I see by the Gazetteer that IN IRELAND. 535 its greatest length is only eighty miles ; its greatest breadth forty- two and a half; and its smallest breadth thirteen and a half; while by the last census it shows a population of no less than 298,564. The statement seems equally at variance with what I have just noticed as the general aspect hitherto presented to us by the people of the country, and seems in no way borne out by our subsequent experience.”* “ I visited two of the Protestant Missions Schools at Clifden, one in the town, and the other about a mile and a half beyond, on the road leading to the mouth of the bay. In the former, at the time of my visit, there were about 120 boys and 100 girls on the books, the average attendance being about 80. Out ofthe 80 girls there were no less than 56 orphans, all of whom are fed and clothed out of the school funds, and a large proportion provided with lodgings also.”t “ At the probationary girls’ school there were 76 on the books at the time of my visit, their ages varying from eight to eighteen years. They were all Catholics or children of Catholic parents ; and out of the number no fewer than 40 are orphans. All the children of this school receive daily rations of Indian meal ; 45 of them 1 lb., and the remainder, half that quantity. Whether this is exclusive of the stirabout breakfast I saw preparing for them in the school I forgot to ask. All the children of these schools read the Scriptures and go to the Protestant Church, Catholic and Protestant alike.”J A notice of the Society for Irish Church Missions to the Roman Catholics would be incomplete without some account of a correspondence which took place eleven or twelve years after Dr. Forbes’s visit to Clifden, and which arose out of a sermon preached by the Rev. George Webster, A.M., Chancellor of Cork, in December, 1863. In it he accused the Society of bribing their supposed converts. On hearing this the Rev. H. C. Fade, the Secretary of the Society, wrote to the Rev. Mr. Webster, asking * Memorandums made in Ireland, &c., Vol. I., pp. 244, 246, 247. t The phrase “ out of the school funds ” was, of course, put in to keep up the delusion, that the Irish Church Mission to the Roman Catholics indignantly repel the charge of attending to anything but the spiritual good of their con- verts. So the 100 poor girls, all paupers, 56 of them being orphans, were able to pay such school fees as fed and clothed themselves, and provided a large pro- portion of them with lodgings ! I wonder that those excellent Missionaries who told Dr. Forbes such a glaring falsehood, did not see that it carried its own refutation with it. J Memorandums, &o., p. 247. The girls in the probationary school being old Catholics, evidently went for the me:il and st'rabout, which was given them in the hope of converting them by degrees. 536 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH if “ he had made the charge, and if so, on what grounds.” To this letter Mr. Webster sent a curt reply as follows : — “ May I beg leave to ask what do you and the Irish Church Mission Society mean by bribery ?” In answer to this inquiry Rev. Mr. Eade says that to give money or anything else to Roman Catholics on the condition of their declaring themselves Protestants would be bribery.”* Mr. Webster accepts the definition so far as it goes, but being of opinion that it did not cover the whole ground, he adds : — “ I believe bribery may refer to more than this. Any man may be fairly charged with bribery, who gives money or any temporal assistance to his fellow-creatures for doing anything which that fellow-creature believes to be wrong. With this kind of bribery I did charge the Irish Church Missions Society last Wednesday week, and I make the same charge on every occasion in public or private, whenever the subject is naturally introduced to my notice. I see no reason still for withdrawing the charge.”t “ You have schools to which Roman Catholics send their children to be taught Protestantism, and the parents of these children are influenced to do this by the food and clothes given in your schools. The money to buy this assistance may be collected locally in the various districts where the schools are situate, and the money collected in England may be devoted to the payment of agents and ‘Missionaries;’ but still the money for food is collected under the auspices of the Society, and with its full sanction. If the food and clothes are not given to tempt the children and adults to attend the classes in the schools, but given as mere charity, why is the food not given to those who refuse to attend the classes? If Archbishop Cullen could afford to open good boarding sehools for the poor Roman Catholics in Dublin, * “The publication of this remarkable correspondence in its complete form, has been rendered necessary by the a])pearance of a pamphlet, issued by the Irish Church Missions^ Society^ in which sundry letters from the Revs. G. Web- ster, and H. C. Eade, and A. R. C. Dallas to the Editor of the Cork Constitution^ are not published. It was felt by many a desideratum to have the whole corres- pondence, especially as so many writers in the Provincial Papers of England and Ireland had fallen into the very natural mistake of supposing that the pam- phlet which has already appeared was complete. It seems from one of Mr. Webster’s statements [see letter dated 15th February] that his reply to one of Mr. Eade’s letters, although published the very day after Mr. Eade’s publications, was wilfully omitted by the Irish Church Missions' Society in their pamphlet.” — Opening paragraph of Preface to the Compendium: hy the Editors. The only complete copy of the correspondence between Rev. G. Webster, M.A., Chancellor of Cork, and the Revs. H. C. Eade, and A. R. C. Dallas, relating to the charge of Bkibery against the Society for Irish Church Missions, together with a paper on Conscience by the Rev. A. R. C. Dallas, and Mr. Colquhoun’s letter to the Daily Telegraph. Edited by Four Rectors. Dublin : Hodges, Smith and Co., 1864. t Letter IV., p. 17. IN IRELAND. 537 would lie not at once fill these schools with Boman Catholic children, and empty the poorhouses. What, then, is keeping the thousands of children away, who refuse to enter your schools, and whose parents are willing to let them put up with the wretchedness of the poorhouse ? There can, I think, be but one answer to this question, and that is the moral sense of right and ivrong, such as it is, in these parents, direct this part of their conduct. If you, then, offer such parents worldly inducements, with the intention of tempting them to send their children to you, I believe your Society is fairly chargeable with bribery. All this I explained to my congregation.” “Your obedient servant, “ Eev. H. C. Eade.” “George WpmsTER.” The question under discussion was a very simple one, but in his next letter Mr. Eade feels it convenient or politic to compli- cate it by introducing extraneous matters ; so he goes into an explanation of “ the many different means” which the Society employed in carrying out its work. Having exhausted these, he is at last obliged to face the real point, and is driven to make the following (to him) very inconvenient admission : addressing Mr. Webster, he says, — “You say that there is bribery in them [the Society's schools], because food is often given to the children in attendance. Before making this charge, it would have been well to have been fully acquainted with the facts of the case. It is quite true that in some, but by no means all of the Mission Schools, food in the form of breakfast is provided, not by the Mission funds, but by money* collected by local friends for the purpose. It must be borne in mind that the food to which we are referring is never offered on any condition of the children becoming Protestants.”t At the close of his letter Rev. Mr. Eade writes : “ As your charge was made publicly in a sermon before a congregation in the city of Cork, I am sure you will perceive that I am at liberty to make this correspondence public through the medium of the Press.”J * “ The reader will observe this nice distinction.'’ — Eds. The italics are the Author’s. The passage lets in the light on Mr. Dallas’s difficulty in taking charge of the Achill Mission, &c., &c. t “ Butit is offered on condition that the children attend the religious instruc- tion of Protestant teachers.” — Eds. Letter V., pp. 19, 20. X P. 23. ‘ ‘ It will be observed it was Mr. Eade who first published this cor- respondence.” — E ds. 538 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH To this Mr. Webster replies : I cannot, of course, have the least objection to your giving any publicity, you may think desirable, to this correspondence ; and I am obliged to you for the trouble you have taken to convince me that the charge of bribery cannot be justly laid at the doors of the Irish Church Missions, I regret, however, that in your letter you did not confine yourself more to the one point I endeavoured to press upon your notice, and that is, that temporal relief is given undoubtedly to Roman Catholics, children and adults, on the express condition, not that they will profess themselves Protestants, but that they will attend your classes and listen to peculiarly Protestant teaching. I com- plain, not that temporal relief is given to our starving fellow- creatures, but that it is given on condition that they commit sin. You do not deny that if the relief be given to induce them to do what they believe to be wrong, the Roman Catholic commits sin who violates his conscience, and you sin doubly in offering the worldly inducement for such a purpose.” “ You say, ‘ even if under the teaching of Rome some of them believed at firsts that they were doing wrong, they soon discover,' &c. This is just the point I wish to dwell upon. I cannot say what good results may spring from evil, but I cannot believe that any results, however beneficial, could justify me in using unlawful means. You must acknowledge that the bread and clothes are given to the children and to the adults for the very purpose of bringing them to your schools.” .... “ Again you say that the Roman Catholic children in Dublin who attend your schools, ‘ could obtain greater temporal advan- tages in Roman Catholic schools or dormitories in the same locality.’ Probably you are not aware that the miserable relief that the Roman Catholics are endeavouring to give, has been very laudably provided by them, for the purpose of counteracting the system of temptation which The Irish Church Missions^ Society has instituted. You cannot surely mean to say that Archbishop Cullen is able to collect as much money in Dublin, for the temporal relief of the countless thousands of Roman Catholics who are willing to receive it, as The Irish Church Mis- sions Society collects in all Ireland ! At all events as a Pro- testant, I should feel ashamed to enter into such a contest with any body of men. It appears to me to be wholly unworthy of Protestantism to make the poverty of Roman Catholics an occasion of out-bidding, or over-reaching the Heads of the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore, as long as you tempt Roman Catholics, by a regular fixed system of relief, to prefer the interests of this world to the interests of the world to come. IN IRELAND. 539 SO long I must feel bound to make every protest in my power against the Irish Church Missions Society.”* .... ‘‘If it were necessary, I could give instances where the ordained agents of the Irish Church Missions paid Protestants to pretend they were Koman Catholics at your controversial meeting, and at these meetings to call these very ordained agents the hardest names. I could tell you of a school, of which it was reported that there were eighty Roman Catholics in attendance, when the fact was, not a single Roman Catholic ever entered the school, except some five or six wretched children, who were sent from Dublin by The Irish Church Missions' Society. I could tell you of a scene I once witnessed at the same establishment, where, on a Sunday morning, large quantities of bread were given to Roman Catholics for learning a verse of Holy Scripture, and where these same people went away cursing the Protestants, and cursing the very persons who gave them the bread, and taught them the verse. I could tell you of agents who were known to be charged with drunkenness and other vices, who entered in their Reports that they were persecuted, when they merely got into broils by their drunkenness, and who were, in spite of the remonstrance of the parish clergyman, retained in their offices. I could tell you of a Report made by one ordained agent, that he had made fourteen converts from Romanism in a certain locality, and who had to acknowledge, when I inquired closely into the matter, that these fourteen persons did not belong at all to that locality, — that they had been brought there by this agent him- self from distant places, and lodged in a schoolhouse, and there represented as converts from the locality where they had been supported for a few weeks. These and many other facts I could repeat, and there are multitudes of clergymen in Ireland who are able to bear a similar testimony from their own experience ; but I should prefer to confine our present controversy to the one grand object — the charge of, what I must call, bribery.”f . . . I am quite sure that multitudes of the supporters of the Society in England would never give their money for the pur- pose of bribery ; and it may be for this reason that the Society is so careful to inform the English people, that all the money collected in England is devoted to the “ missionary" part of the work. Be this as it may, it is a remarkable fact that the Society loses no opportunity of declaring that “ not one shilling of the money collected in England is devoted to the purchase of food or clothes]” and I think it ought always to be added that nearly * Letter VI., p. 25. t Ibid., pp. 25, 26. 540 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH all the money collected in Ireland is devoted to this purpose. . . . “The terrible fact with which you have to grapple is, that under your Society a Roman Catholic child receives his bed and breakfast — he is housed and clothed — on the expressed con- dition that he listens to Protestant teaching and attends a Protestant place of worship.”^ .... The giving of temporal relief to Roman Catholics to accept Protestant teaching and attend Protestant worship, having been fully proved by Mr. Webster and admitted, although reluctantly, by Mr. Eade, the latter takes up the question of conscience, which Mr. Webster had been pressing upon him from the beginning. He faces it at last, and differs with Mr. WebstePs theory concerning it, saying : — “ Allow me to remind you that the conscience of a Roman Catholic is a misdirected conscience Such being the case, no Roman Catholic can even take the first step out of such a system without violating his misdirected conscience.” Of this argument the Editors say in a note: ‘‘Mr. Eade forgets that the sin of which Mr. Webster spoke was the sin of those Roman Catholic parents, who, for the sake of food a7id clothes, were willing to endanger (as they believed) the everlasting salvation of their children.’^f It may be added, that Mr. Eade’s argument about conscience, besides being utterly untrue in itself, is founded on his belief that the Catholic Church is a false Church, and that the Protestant Church is the true one. To assume this is very cool of Mr. Eade. In doing so, he undertakes, by a very short process, to put an end to that religious contro- versy which has exercised the greatest intellects at both sides, since the days of the Protestant Reformation ; and to say the least of it, no one, as far as we know, except Mr. Eade, has assumed that the controversy is closed, and by the decision of Christendom closed against the claims of the Catholic Church! Mr. Eade’s notion of an erroneous conscience is, that those who believe in a Church in which he does not believe, have a “ mis- directed,” or erroneous conscience, which he is quite justiOed in setting right, thought his may not be accomplished “ without violating his misdirected conscience.” We wonder he did not see * The charge of temporal relief to Roman Catholics for listening to Protes- tant teaching is thus replied to by Mr. Eade: — “No funds of the Society, whether collected in Ireland or England, are ever expended in temporal relief.” ■ — Letter V II., p. SO. To this assertion the Editors append the following note : — “Mark the peculiar emphasis to be laid on Society.” The money, as already admitted, was obtained by other agencies, and it is sorry special pleading to say the Society was not accountable for it ; it was cognizant of it, as Mr. Eade had already admitted, and thankful for it. — See Letter V., p. 19, and Letter IX., p. 35, for a repetition of same, t Note to Letter VIE., p. 29. IN IRELAND. 541 that the argument tells both ways. Surely a Catholic can retort, without at all adopting his indefensible theory of conscience- curing, and tell him that he, Mr. Eade, belongs to a false, heretical Church, and therefore has a misdirected’’ conscience ; and that he, the said Catholic, will set him right by referring him to an infallible Church, which is the supreme judge of religious controversies, and which will supply him with a true, rightly directed conscience, instead of the ‘‘misdirected” one which he has at present. The question of Conscience having become an important factor in the controversy, Mr. Dallas impetuously rushed to the assistance of Mr. Eade, and published a lengthy paper which he called “ Conscience,” addressed to no one in par- ticular. On this strange production we will express no opinion. The Editors of the Correspondence introduce it with this remark; — “We think it desirable to publish a paper issued by Mr. Dallas (if it be not a mere squib or forgery) on the subject of Conscience.” (!) It was nothing of the kind ; it was an Essay on Conscience, of which the Author evidently had a very high opinion. He says at the very opening of it, — “ In the course of the correspondence [Mr. Webster and Mr. Eade] the Wehsterian dogma concerning Conscience has been shown to be erroneous.” This observation the Editors mildly but effectively rebuke, in the following words : — “ We do not know why Mr. Dallas should call Mr. Webster’s teaching ‘the Wehsterian dogma.’ It is the dogma of Bishop Butler, and of all the great moralists that ever wrote on the subject, to say nothing of its being the direct teaching of the Apostle Paul.”* Mr. Dallas refers to St. Peter's vision as related in the Acts of the Apostles (chap, x.) where the account is given of a certain vessel descending, wherein were “ all manner of four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth and fowls of the air.” A voice from heaven said to Peter, “ Arise and eat,” &c., hut Peter constrained by his conscience refused to do so. Mr. Dallas applies this act of St. Peter’s to his own view of “ Conscience,” and says in his opinion it is more applicable to the subject of conscience than Mr. Webster’s illus- tration. The following is the commentary of the Editors upon this assertion of Mr. Dallas : “ If we had not seen this passage in print, we could not have believed upon a mere report that any clergyman ever wrote it. Surely Mr. Dallas, upon reconsidering it, must see that the moment St. Peter was fully satisfied in his own mind, that it was the voice of God he was listening to, his conscience must have prompted him at once to obey that voice. Correspondence, p. 48, note^ by Editors. 542 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH His obedience then was not against his conscience, but entirely in accordance with it. Does Mr. Dallas really think St. Peter believed he was committing sin, when * * * § not being doubting’ (Acts X. 12), ‘fully persuaded to his own mind,’ he obeyed what he believed the commandment of God.”* What an opinion the four Hectors, who edited the Correspon- dence, must have had of Mr. Dallas, the man who had constituted himself the Modern Apostle of Ireland ! The very grave charge made hy Mr. Webster against the Society, at p. 25, beginning, “ If it were necessary I could give instances,” &c., was taken up by Mr. Eade after he had said his last word on the question of “ Conscience.” He deals with it as follows : — “ A third point in your letter is calculated to deceive those who might hear a charge, but who might not be in a posi- tion to investigate its truth. ‘ Ordained agents of the Irish Church Missions,’ you say, ‘ paid Protestants to pretend they were Roman Catholics, and speak at the controversial meetings,’ &c. This miserable charge was brought forward some years ago by Dr. Cullen in one of his pastorals, without, however, any mention of the names of the persons accused, and though the charge was indignantly repudiated at the time by all the clergy connected with our Mission, and, let me add, by some Roman Catholics themselves, who had spoken at the classes, it has been from time to time repeated, and as often denied.”*!* In his letter of reply Mr. Webster writes: — “ I never denied that it was the duty of a Protestant, on all suitable occasions, to endeavour to show a Roman Catholic that he is bound to ‘ search the scriptures,’ and exercise his mind and reason to discover the truth. Therefore all you say on this subject has, I submit, nothing to do with the question between us.”J “All the facts I mentioned about ‘ ordained agents,’ who paid Protestants to act the 'part of Roman Catholics at your controversial meetings, &c., are facts to which I can testify from my own actual knowledge ; and if necessary, I can give names and dates to verify all I have said.”§ In his next letter Rev. Mr. Eade says : — “ I not only ‘ do not deny,’ but I feel deeply thankful that Christian friends are found * Correspondence, p. 53, note. ‘ ‘ What would the Apostle have said if one of the Christians in Corinth who had ‘knowledge’ offered money to one of his weak brethren to induce him to defile his conscience ! Let it never be. forgotten that the whole question is about the offer of money, or food, or clothes, to induce the violation of conscience.” — Editors’ Preface, p. 13. t Letter VII., p. 31. X Letter VIII., p. 33. § Ibid., p. 34. IN mELA-ND. 543 to collect money for the temporal support of the ragged schools and dormitories, and I heartily wish they had more funds at their disposal.”* * * § ‘‘ With regard to the names of the ‘ordained agents,’ who, as you allege, paid Protestants to speak at classes and pretend they were Roman Catholics, I am willing to leave it to your judgment as to whether they should be brought forward, merely saying, that I presume they are persons either now con- nected with the Society, or within reach, so that they can answer for themselves on so grave a charge. For myself, I am quite content with again declaring, that the Society neither practises nor sanctions such proceedings, and I have no doubt that you have been misinformed.”t It is known already to the reader that it was Mr. Eade who first published the correspondence with Mr. Webster. His object in doing so is clear enough ; he wished to forestall the latter with English readers, English newspapers, and above all with the English subscribers to the Society. It was this piece of cleverness which evidently influenced the four editors to publish the full correspondence, although Mr. Webster does not appear to have ambitioned publication in the permanent form of a pamphlet.^ After the correspondence had apparently closed, a series of letters in continuation of it were published in the Cork Con- stitution, As these are quite as important as any that have been yet noticed, they cannot be passed over in silence here. They are published by the Editors in an Appendix. The first letter in the Appendix is from Rev. Mr. Eade. Writing to the editor of the Constitution he says : — “ With reference to your leading article of yesterday on my correspondence with Mr. Webster, I beg to state that I have no objection whatever to the production of the names of the ‘ clerical agents ’ of the Irish Church Missions, who are alleged to have acted the unworthy part imputed to them, and this I fully stated in my letter from which you quoted.”§ Mr. Webster’s reply is clear and direct. It is : — “ All that I have to say in reply to a letter from Mr. Eade, which appears in this morning’s Constitution, is, the scenes I have described in my correspondence with Mr. JEade were witnessed by myself in Irishtown school- ho use, Dublin, in 1856, and I complained of them at the time to my Rector, and * Letter IX., p. 35. The Italics are the Author’s, t Ibid. t See reason given by Eds. in Preface to Correspondence, p. 3, for publishing the full correspondence. ° § Appendix, Letter I., p. 56. 544 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH to the Archbishop of Dublin. The Archbishop held an inquiry into the whole matter in October, 1857, and the result of the inquiry was, the Irish Church Missions were removed by the order of the E-ector from Irishtown. - Of all this Mr. Eade, Mr. Dallas, and all the other leading agents of the Irish Church Missions are fully aware ; and besides this, all the charges against the Society which appear in my letters to Mr. Eade are only a repe- tition of what I said in Cork five years ago, at a large clerical meeting, in the presence of the same Mr. Eade. If any person is disposed to blame me for the scandal of disclosing these things by means of the public Press, I have merely to add, that the correspondence was published by Mr. Eade^ and not by me. I have never made any secret of my opposition to the Irish Church Missions ; I have always endeavoured, however, to correct the fearful evils of its system, by first making my complaints, either at head- quarters or in the presence of the clergy “ The scenes I described are similar to all the scenes which may be witnessed any day in the year, in any place where the Irish Church Missions Society gives bread and clothes to Eoman Catholics for doing what they believe to be sinful ; and therefore, the real question between Mr. Eade and all the opponents of the Irish Church Missions is — Are we justified in giving food and clothes to our fellow- creatures, for the purpose of tempting them to do what they believe to be displeasing to their Heavenly Father? Are we justified in doing evil that good may come ? Are we justified in systematically teaching people to prefer the interests of this world to the interests of the world to come ? This I submit is the grand point at issue ; and Mr. Eade has now acknowledged (what many clergymen in Ireland knew before)* that there is a fund, which is collected in Ireland under the auspices of the Irish Church Missions Society, and with its full sanction and approval, by which fund the most objectionable part of the machinery of the Society has been worked. It is to the existence of this ‘ secret service ’ fund that I object ; and I am altogether at a loss to know how the agents of the Society, who know of the existence of that fund, are able so confidently to tell our English brethren this, ‘ not one shilling of the funds of the Society are expended in temporal relief.’ I do not say that there are not many other parts of the machinery of the Society to which I object, such as the exceedingly rash and irreverent advertisements that appear * “ Many clergy in Ireland no doubt knew this, but it is evident our English brethren were not so well informed.” — Eds. IN IRELAND. 545 in the Dublin newspapers almost every day, for the supposed instruction of Roman Catholics ; but these are comparatively trifling details, and I should willingly enter into a discussion about them, and sundry such matters, were I not, as I have said, unwilling to allow attention to be withdrawn for one moment from what I believe to be positively immoral and unholy in the system. * To him who esteemeth anything to be unclean to him it is unclean.’ It is upon this one point the whole question we are now discussing with the Irish Church Mission depends, and it appears to me that if you once admit that ‘ the end justifies the means,’ there is no act of injustice, fraud, treachery, or oppression that may not be employed in the service of religion or civilization.”* From the time Mr. Webster charged the Irish Church Missions with paying Protestants to pretend they were Roman Catholics at the controversial meetings of the Society, in order to defend Catholic doctrines there, and in due time to confess they were worsted in the contest, Mr. Fade had in his letters been calling on Mr. Webster to name the ordained agents” who had acted such an unworthy part. This Mr. Webster undertook to do, if guaranteed against legal proceedings, but the guarantee was never ofiPered. And because Mr. Webster refused to give publicity to the names in the absence of such guarantees, Mr. Fade triumphs over him, saying that “ he would have been more conscientious if he had not made a charge public before he was prepared to give publicly a proof of its being true.”t But we must hasten to conclude this account of the ** Irish Church Missions to Roman Catholics.” The question of paying Protestants to pretend they were Catholics came before the Archbishop of Dublin (Dr. Whately), with other grave charges against the Society, and he held an inquiry on the subject, of which Mr. Webster publishes an account, written by a clergyman who was present; Mr. Webster himself was not there, as he was one of the accusing parties. In the second place, Mr. Webster publishes a letter written to Mr. Dallas by the Archbishop, which he had * Letter No. II,, Appendix, pp. 57, 58, 59. t “ Mr. Bade forgets that Mr. Webster offers the names if guaranteed against legal consequences Let the offer be accepted, or let the names be given privately to Mr. Bade, and let that gentleman either acknowledge that the promise has been redeemed or give a reason for maintaining that it has not. Ed. of the Cor 7c Constitution. Correspondence, &c,, p. 73. With what necessary caution Mr. Webster acted is proved by the following extract from the investigation before Most Rev. Dr. Whately : — “ Then came M (a most respectable parishioner of Donnybrook). Mr. Dallas cautioned him, as an action for libel might be the result of some of his state- ments ! ! !” Notes of Investigation in Correspondence, p. 91. 2 M 546 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH called on Mr. Dallas to publish ; that gentleman, however, replied that he was unable to publish the letter at 'present^ and “ had for- gotten all about it.” Mr. Webster being in possession of a copy of the letter, prints it with the notes taken at the investigation, not by himself, but by another clergyman who gave them to him. He proceeds : — “ After these two important documents, I think it desirable to repeat some of the statements made by Mr. Eade and Mr. Dallas in their published letters, so that the public may be able to judge how the matter now stands.” ‘“These particular charges,’ Mr. Eade says, ‘were never investigated before the late Archbishop of Dublin, as Mr. Dallas, who was present, will testify ; and neither I nor any other officer of the Society know of any one who was ever guilty of the conduct described, and which is, in fact, virtually imputed to our whole body. The details of the specific charges made by Mr. Webster, I, for example, never knew till I read them in this correspondence ; nor do I know of any one who ever had an opportunity of replying to such accusations.' Yet it is now seen from the Archbishop’s letter that Mr. Eade wrote the very letter to which his Grace makes so many allusions. Mr. Dallas says, ‘Mr. Wesbter’s inference that the charges were known to the Society is entirely unjustifiable, and proves no such thing ; but shows that Mr. Webster’s statement about the inquiry was utterly untrue.' (I confess I do not understand the meaning of this sentence).* ‘It would seem that Mr. Webster’s object is to misguide the readers of this correspondence, by suggesting illogical inferences, directing the mind from the true points at issue. I, personally for myself , and oficially for the Society, distinctly deny every one of Mr. Webster's charges as criminat- ing the Society in any particular. My distinct statement is directly opposed to Mr. Webster's. I am quite satisfied to leave the choice of credit upon the readers of the correspondence.’ ‘ Not one of these “ scenes" describedby Mr. Webster in his corres- pondence formed the subject of the inquiry to which Mr. Webster alludes.’ What then are my charges which Mr. Dallas so emphatically denies ? “ 1. That food and clothes are given to poor Roman Catholics in Ireland by the Irish Church Missions Society, to induce these Roman Catholics to do what they believe to be sinful ? Mr. Webster says he does not understand what could possibly be the mean- ing of this sentence ; we think we might safely oflFer a large reward to any one who could explain it. Eds.” Note to Mr. Dallas’s letter in which the passage occurs. IN IRELAND. 547 Does Mr. Dallas deny this ? “ 2. That several years ago I made charges agaiast the Society precisely the same as the charges repeated in my correspondence with Mr. Eade, and that these charges were well known to the Society, and especially to Mr. Dallas himself and to Mr. Eade. ‘‘ Does Mr. Dallas now deny this ? “ 3. That these charges were made by me against the Society, at an inquiry held by the late Archbishop of Dublin, into the operations of the Society in Donnybrook parish. Does Mr. Dallas now deny this ? “ 4. That after this investigation, the Archbishop gave a judg- ment condemnatory of the Society’s operations in that locality. “ Does Mr. Dallas now deny this ? “ 5. That at this investigation the definite charge made by me (not the one alluded to in the Archbishop’s letter) against one ordained agent for paying a man who acted the part of a Roman Catholic, was supported by the testimony of at least one respect- able parishioner of Donnybrook — one who actually saw the ordained agent giving the money. " Does Mr. Dallas now deny this ? “ 6. (I pass this paragraph as it refers to the bishop and clergy of Limerick, and does not immediately affect the issue here). ** 7. That it is always reported in England by the Society that not one shilling of the Funds of the Society is given for temporal relief in Ireland, and yet that several thousands of pounds are raised in Ireland to provide food and clothes and lodging for the converts^ {^) with the full sanction of the Society itself. Does Mr. Dallas deny this ? “ 8. That this fund for temporal relief is part of the accredited machinery of the Society, and that to the present hour the temporal relief is given upon the expressed condition that the recipients attend the controversial classes. “ Does Mr. Dallas deny this ? “ These are eight definite charges which I make against the Society, and I shall now leave my readers to judge how far these charges have been justified by me. If any more documentary evidence relating to the investigation held by the late Archbishop be required, I shall be able very easily to provide it. But I submit I have now given proof that his Grace and Mr. Dallas were well aware of what Mr. Dallas must now have totally for- gotten. I will not charge Mr. Dallas, as he has charged me, with direct falsehood, for I am willing to put the most charitable con- * This is Mr. Webster’s note of interrogation, not the Author’s. 548 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH struction possible upon his very serious mistake. I cannot believe that Mr. Dallas could have remembered the corres- pondence between himself and his Grace, and of which the Archbishop’s letter, now published, formed a part ; and yet I can hardly acquit Mr. Dallas of some rashness in so hastily impugning the veracity of a brother clergyman.”"^ To the above formidable array of charges, reproduced from the body of the correspondence, we might fairly look for something from Mr. Dallas that could be called a rejoinder. But no. After its appearance he prints two short letters : the first merely says that “ the existence” of the Archbishop’s letter “ had gone from his memory yet when he had a search made the letter was found, and he sent a copy of it to the Cork Constitution, but it had just appeared in that Journal a day or two before from Mr. Webster. In his second letter Mr. Dallas has nothing to say about the charges made by Mr. Webster, but that, “to a fair judging mind it will easily appear that in all he [Mr. Webster] says, nothing is inconsistent luith the account which he [Mr. Dallas] had given from memory of what occurred at the investigation before the Archbishop of Dublin in 1857.f As to the eight charges,” he proceeds, I have only to repeat my denial in the same form I have already used. I do deny them all and each as ^ criminating the Society.’ It would be idle waste of time to enter into a detail of such charges,” &c. And so he leaves the case in the hands of the Constitution. Poor Mr. Dallas ! it would be cruel to say a word more about him. There is a passage in one of Mr. Webster’s letters with which I will close the correspondence between him and the Society of Irish Church Missions. He makes a case thus: What, he says, would be thought of a bishop, if he offered to give clergymen livings if they would only promise to put their schools under the National Board ? What would be thought of a bishop who would exhort such clergy to join the National Board, merely on the grounds that their adherence to their conscientious convictions would entail great privations upon themselves or the children of their parishes ? The conscientious supporter of the Church Education Society would, of course, indignantly reject any such * Letter to the Cork Constitution. Appendix, p. 84, et seq. In a postscript to this letter Mr. Webster writes as follows “ I think I have some reason to complain that The Irish Church Missions have published a pamphlet containing the correspondence between Mr. Eade and me, and also Mr. Eade’s letter to the Editor of the Constitution, dated January 30th, and omitting my reply to that letter, dated February 2nd, which appeared in the Constitution the very day after Mr. Eade’s letter appeared.” t The italics in this passage are the Author’s. IN IRELAND. 549 offers, in spite of the privations such rejection would entail. We should all agree in sympathising with him in his distress ; and why ? Because we are all prepared to honour the man who does what he believes to he right. “ Are we, then, to feel this sym- pathy for Protestants, who are grievously in error, and is there to be no sympathy felt for our Koman Catholic brethren ? Is it to be a sin too horrible to be conceived, to bribe a Protestant, and is it to be perfectly allowable to bribe a Roman Catholic ? If a pooPdestitute mother is able to see her children starving, when she knows she can easily give them bread and clothes if she only does what she believes to be abominable in the eyes of God,* and if, in spite of this temptation, she still bears up and witnesses day after day, the sufferings of the little innocents — are we to have no sympathy with such a mother ? If she looks up to heaven and resolves to die rather than do what she believes to be displeasing to God, is she to have no pity from us, merely because we believe she is very much mistaken in her notions of what is true? I feel almost ashamed at being driven into such questions as these ; and yet these are the very questions at issue between the Irish Church Missions and all Protestants who are opposed to that Society.”! The sham discussions which were carried on under the auspices of the Society, and which Mr. Webster has so completely exposed, were numerous in Dublin and the suburbs ; but it was all but impossible to get sufficient evidence concerning them. Many years ago, when the Author was a curate in Kingstown, the bible-readers of the Society used to go about the roads, waylay the priests during their walks, and endeavour to draw them into a discussion, by asking them in an apparently humble and respectful manner to interpret a text of Scripture for them which they pointed out — always in a Douay Testament. Of course it was a favourite controversial text noted for them by their superiors. These men were obliged to make weekly reports, of which we possess a number printed in pamphlet form; and it was an important event for them to meet a priest. If he said a few words to them, the incident was reported as an interesting discussion with a Popish priest ; if he passed on and said nothing, the assumption was that he was afraid to be confronted with the Word of God. When the children of the Bird’s Nest in Kingstown were out for recreation, they were taught, when they met a priest, to say in concert, and loud enough to be heard by him — “ Is there a man in the host and this was repeated until he had passed the whole * These italics are the Author’s. t Letter No. II. in Appendix, p. 60 of the Correspondence. 550 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH band, walking two deep. The poor children, not knowing what the phrase meant, often mistook their lesson, and addressing the priest direct, called him “ The man in the host.” These things have happened to the Author. Such insults have, we believe, been discontinued or nearly so. Influential friends of the Society, convinced that the aggressive system was a mistake, induced the heads of the Society to give it up, although the Society wasfounded on this system byMr. Dallas, and although, when Dr. Forbes was in Connaught in 1852, com- plaints were made to him of the obtrusiveness of the bible-readers. “ I heard more than one Catholic,” he writes, “ complain a good deal of the annoyance of the domiciliary visits of the Scripture readers ; and one Protestant inhabitant in a country district near Clifden, accused these young men of being often deficient both in courtesy and good sense, in their dealings with the poor people in their houses. Their zeal, he said, greatly exceeded their knowledge and far outstripped their discretion.”* Although the aggressive system of the Irish Church Missions has fallen into disrepute with its friends, and is to a great extent discontinued, the accounts from various agents in the annual English Reports are still most misleading. In “The Story of the Irish Church Missions” under the year 1855, we find this entry : — “ Belfast : A great impulse was given to Missionary work in this town by means of the Discussion Class. A Roman Catholic , champion was sent from Scotland for the purpose of putting down the proselytism, and a challenge from the President of the Catholic Defence Association (?) drew together hundreds of listeners, among whom were great numbers of Romanists ; and the Mission house being too small to hold them, the meeting was transferred to Wellington Hall, where a discussion took place on difi’erent doctrines of the Church of Rome. There was much interest shown and no excitement. But the champion did not long continue on the platform ; on the second night he very suddenly retired, leaving an immense crowd to be addressed by tbe Agents of the Mission.”t This looks very like one of those sham discussions exposed by Rev. Mr. Webster. The idea of the Catholics of Belfast sending to Scotland for a champion to put down proselytism in their town only provokes ridicule in Ireland, but the Agents of the Society seem to think anything will go down with their English subscribers. Then the stage effect of his sudden retirement, when the crowd was greatest, is really admir- able. Unfortunately for this highly efiective scene, I find no * Memorandums made in Ireland in 1852, Yol. I., p. 254. t Story of the Irish Church Missions, p. 158. IN IRELAND. 551 account of it in the Eeport of 1855. The account of the Belfast Mission in it is of a very lugubrious kind. The Missionary of the place had resigned, and the Committee found it “ difficult” or rather “ impossible” to provide a successor. One of the local clergy, Eev. Mr. Cathcart, was induced to look after the converts (?) and this ad interim arrangement soon became permanent. He had, according to the Eeport, ‘‘ already collected an inquiring class,” and we are further told that it was “ attended exclusively by persons who, on the spot, have been led to forsake the Church of Eome” (!) If they had forsaken the Church of Eome what need of further inquiry ? Thinking that the defeat of the great Scotch champion v/ould, if printed at all, appear in the English report of 1855 or 1856, andnotfindingitinthat of 1855, 1 went to 1856, but to no purpose. People asking questions in the controversial class night after night, the posting of 4,500 controversial placards and the dis- tribution of 91,000 handbills, I found chronicled ; and how surprising it was that so many Eomanists were anxious to be possessed of the word of God, and their great thankfulness on receiving copies of it, &c., &c. The Scotch champion was no where to be found, except in the ‘‘Story of the Irish Church Missions,” which was printed just twenty years after his supposed defeat. It was a safe interval. In the English Eeport of the Society, published this year (1886), we find a new Missionary in Belfast. He had been only six months appointed ; and he writes as if he were the first Missionary who was ever there. “Close observation,” he says, “during the past six months has led me to conclude that Belfast is well adapted for Mission work among Eoman Catholics.” These look like the wordsof a man who felt that no missionary work had been done there before his time. What then about the work of twenty glorious years before ? What about the discomfiture of the Scotch Catholic champion, andhishurried exit ? Thenew Mission- ary has great ragged schools, he says. The best thing, however, in his report is his account of the controversial classes. Here is what he says : — “ I take this opportunity of offering my sincere thanks to Archdeacon Seaver, Eev. Dr. Hanna, Dr. Kane, and Eev. H. E. Smith for their kindness in placing at my disposal their schoolrooms for controversial classes. The meetings were well attended, and have, I trust, been productive of much good.”^ If this passage does not enlighten the English subscribers English Report for 1885, pnb, 1886, 552 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH we fear there is no hope of doing it. Do those subscribers know anythiug about the social condition of Belfast ? Do they know that it is an exception to the whole of the United King- dom in that respect ? The Catholics as a rule live to themselves in certain portions of the town, and the Protestants, who are nearly all Orangemen, do the same. The usual intercourse of neighbours cannot be said to exist among them. The President of the present Commission of Inquiry said, some days ago, that this was a deplorable state of things. Ko doubt it is, but will it be cured ? Not soon, I fear. I do not go into the reasons for this opinion, but I do believe the cure will not be wrought for a long time to come. The idea of Catholics going into a Protestant school-house in one of the Protestant quarters of Belfast to hear their faith traduced is simply absurd to us in Ireland ; but the idea of any Catholic crossing the threshold of Dr. Kane’s school-house for such a purpose'Js an insult to our understandings ; yet it is pabulum quite good enough, the Missionary seems to think, for the English subscribers. For who is Dr. Kane ? He is the recognised leader of the Orangemen of Orange Belfast. Dr. Hanna, at the time he was pilloried in Punchy and for a good while after, held the important position of leader of these Orangemen; but great as he was, and still is, amongst them, he had to make way for Dr. Kane. Dr. Hanna has stood his ground, and did not run away from the Commis- sion of Inquiry. He was examined before it ; but Dr. Kane was so seriously compromised during the riots that he prudently went to Canada, to organize, it is reported , to the Home RvXe movement. The new Missionary of Belfast, with his six months’ experience, feels bound to thank Dr. Kane for the use of his school-house for the purpose of holding controversial classes in it; that is, to discuss Catholic tenets with Catholics. We would wish to see it proved that even one Belfast Catholic ever crossed the threshold of Dr. Kane’s school-house for such a purpose. Will this baseless assumption, bold as it is baseless, not awaken English subscribers ? We fear not. Will the Commission of Inquiry not awaken them ? We fear not. Will they read the Commissioners’ Report ? Some may, but we fear it will not influence them. The craze of turning the Irish Papists into good Protestants is so inveterately rooted in the hearts of a large number of English Protestants, that it seems next to impossible to eradicate it. The limited account, which the space at our disposal enables us to give of a few out of the many proselytizing societies which have assailed the faith of Ireland, gives but a meagre idea of the battle which its Catholic people have had to flght under IN IRELAND. 553 this division of the warfare. Their heroic struggles during the famine of 1847 and the years which immediately followed, have, there can be no doubt, won for untold numbers the martyr’s crown. Like the forty martyrs of old, abundance was offered, forced upon them — food, clothing, everything necessary to save their lives : they resisted all, they gave up their lives and kept the Faith. It may seem surprising to many that an organization like the Society of Irish Church Missions could b^e called into existence by such a man as Mr. Dallas. In his “ Story ” of this Society, in his letters, in his paper upon Conscience, wherever in fact we meet him, he exhibits few or none of those qualities which people expect in a man who has accomplished some- thing great. There are three reasons which go far to account for his success. They were, (1) the proselytizing craze spoken of above, which has perennial existence in England, (2) the opportunity afforded by the Irish Famine for abolishing Popery in this land, which Mr. Dallas declared should be seized and utilized for that purpose,* and (3) Mr. Dallas’s unlimited con- fidence in himself. So much for the founder; now for the Society itself. Any reader of Dr. Forbes’s book and Chancellor Webster’s letters will see how wanting in all the higher qualities of religious instruction the agents of the Society were, and no doubt now are. It exag- gerated its success most enormously, but had it succeeded to the full extent which it laid claim to, nay, to the full extent desired by Mr. Dallas and his supporters, how few real Protestants it would have made ! We could never find, that its agents did anything more than teach the children who went to them the intensest hatred of Pope and Popery, and get them to commit to memory a few texts of Scripture — not those enjoining the practice of the moral virtues, or inculcating Christian charity, but such as could be used for controversial purposes against Rome. They * “ It seemed a time to take advantage of, for the further testing of the missionary effort. “ The famine of 1847 brought on a new crisis in the minds of the Irish people, loosening them from priestly power and preparing them to receive the Gospel. The means by which the truth was brought to them [the Famine] bore the mark of a Divine Hand, and led to results beyond the utmost expectation of those who were employed in the work.”^ The reader will not fail to note that in the above passage, Divine Providence seems to be directly charged with producing the Famine, with the object of aiding the Society of Irish Church Missions to the Roman Catholics. ^ Story of the Irish Church Missions, p. 25. * Preface, p. xvii. THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH o64> taught and, as far as I know, teach no Creed whatever ; and hence they teach no distinct form of religious belief. The result of such a system is clear enough. They succeed in destroying the faith of poor Catholic children who come under their influence, but do not make them Protestants ; they make them miserable, creedless beings, and no doubt, in some cases, decided unbelievers. What a result from such labour and outlay! For the average income of the Society has been something like £30,000 a year from its establishment. It even touched £40,000 at one time, although its income is now much below that amount. Its total Receipts in 1885 were £22,411, 7s. Id. Of this sum £3,108, 18s. 3d. is derived from legacies. It counts amongst its subscribers four prelates only, but this rarity of Episcopal patronage is somewhat compensated for by an array of between thirty and forty titled subscribers, some of them the highest in the land. For instance our late wonderfully popular Yiceroy, the Earl of Aberdeen, appears in this year’s Report as a subscriber of £55, and his amiable and equally popular Countess for £10, 10s. The Society of Church Missions to the Irish Roman Catholics has seen its best day, but let no Catholic disregard it. There is work in it yet. To despise or ignore this fact, would be a grievous mistake, which those who are charged with the great and solemn duty of protecting the Faith of Ireland are not likely to commit. The Author has now reached the point which he had assigned to himself for bringing this volume to a close. The large and interesting field of Irish History and Catholic effort, which surrounds Emancipation, he leaves to be dealt with by others. His design was to describe those fierce assaults that have been avowedly made on Ireland’s faith since the Reformation. Other struggles there were of undying interest. But he ventures to hope that the reader will find in this volume a narrative from which he may understand the heroic battle that left us, after three centuries of terrible conflict, a Church to emancipate in 1829, and to salute to-day as the rising hope of Christianity in Western Europe. IN IRELAND, 5 55 NOTES. Note A. — Finding of the Silver Bullet at Clonmel. After the repulse and terrible slaughter of his men, it is said that Cromwell decided on retiring from Clonmel, having made up his mind that he had not forces sufficient to take the place. But he accidentally found a silver bullet in thegrass, evidently fired out by the garrison, and the fact suggested to him that O’Neill must' be out, or on the point of being out of ammunition, since he was driven to the extremity of melting down bis silver for bullets. He changed his mind, and determined to call from the out-garrisons such reinforcements as could be spared, and continue the siege. Everything connected with Cromwell’s operations before Clonmel points to the conclusion, that this Silver-bullet story is either a pure invention, or a greatly distorted account. 1. It would have been extremely damaging to Cromwell’s reputation to retire defeated from Clonmel — a view which he puts plainly forward, in his pressing message to Lord Broghill to hasten to his assistance ; nor would the summons he had received to return to England cover his retreat, or excuse his failure. 2. It is extremely improbable that O’Neill had as much silver in his military chest, as if melted down and cast into bullets, would have an appreciable effect on the issue of the conflict. 3. Had O’Neill turned his silver into bullets, surely more than one of them would have been picked up, for the soldiers would have searched closely for them, on hearing of Oliver’s find. Two solutions of this curious story suggest themselves. (1) When a place was taken or a battle won by bribery, the style of the time was, to say the success was the result of silver bullets — a phrase which has been applied to Cromwell’s victory at Dunbar. The silver bullet won many places for him in Ireland, and was certainly fired into Clonmel, as we know from Fennell’s confession ; and through years of tradition and discussion, the change from firing the silver bullet in, instead of firing it out, would not be a very violent one. (2) It may have been a ruse of Oliver’s own, to induce his beaten and cowed legions once again to face O’Neill. At any rate the circumstance is mysterious, suspicious, and unique. I find by recent inquiries that the story as related in Hall’s Ireland, still survives in Tipperary. Note B.— Hugh Duff O’Neill. Hugh O’Neill, the famous defender of Clonmel and Limerick, was the son of Art O’Neill, surnamed Oge, brother of Owen Eoe O’Neill. He is mentioned as Hugh M‘Art Oge, Hugh Boy {Buidhe), or the swarthy, referring to his sallow complexion, and Hugh^ Duff {Dubh), the black, which no doubt indicates the colour of his hair, sallow people usually having black hair. He was born in the {Spanish Netherlands. He 556 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH learned the art of war in the “ martial theatre of Flanders,” and came to Ireland with his uncle Owen Roe in ] 642. He was taken prisoner at Clones in 1643, and did not recover his liberty till 1646, when he was exchanged after the battle of Benburb, and received the appointment of Major-General in the Ulster Army. This army was partly under his command duringthe last illness of his uncle,who despatched him in’advance with 2,000 foot to Ormonde, in fulfilment of his agreement with that nobleman. Hugh was desirous to succeed his uncle as Commander-in- Chief of the Ulster army, and whoever examines the history of the time, must regard it as an irreparable calamity to the cause for which they fought, that he did not receive the appointment. He was in Clonmel when it was made, but that should not have been a bar to his getting it ; nor was it put forward as such. The appointment of Heber M‘Mahon was a compromise, the result of divided councils. In I/imerick his position was one of great difficulty. He was always on excellent terms with Ormonde, and in some sense represented him as Governor of Limerick ; but the clergy, having lost all confidence in the slippery Marquis, declared that the government of Ireland should not con- tinue in his hands, and they published an excommunication against those who would countenance or adhere to him. On this matter Hugh O’Neill thus writes to Ormonde : — “ I could wish myself rather out of the world, than to be witness to the calamities and affiictions which will, undoubt- edly, issue upon this revolution, if not speedily prevented by your Excellency’s wisdom, in endeavouring a right understanding bet wixt you and the clergy. Your Excellency knoweth what religion I profess, and that I cannot in conscience, but make a scruple of being any way subject to so heavy a sentence as that of excommunication.”* After having escaped death on th^ surrender of Limerick, Hugh O’Neill and Colonel Alex. M‘Donnell were sent to England. O’Neill was committed to the Tower in 1652 ; the hire of his chamber there was paid by the State, which also ordered him an allowance of twenty shillings a week, and “ the liberty of the Tower.”t In J uly of the same year the Spanish Ambassador at London applied officially for his discharge from the Tower, on the ground, amongst others, that he was a subject of the King of Spain. The application was granted, and he was permitted to end his days in Spanish territory. He assumed the title of Earl of Tyrone in Spain, and the English Envoy at Madrid, Henry Bennet, after- wards Earl of Arlington, in a letter to Ormonde, dated 27th of October, 1660, proved, from papers shown him by O’Neill, that he was the true heir to the title. There is another letter of the same date from Madrid, written by O’Neill himself to Ormonde, enclosing one for Charles IL, and entreating Ormonde’s good offices with the King in his behalf, that his Majesty would extend his grace and favour to him, and restore him to the position which his family held in the “ esteem and favour of his Royal progenitors.” This, he seeks more for his successors than for himself, for, he writes to Ormonde, “ God knows how little ground I have in my health to promise myself the long enjoyment of this grace, but His holy will being done concerning me, it would be a great satisfaction to me in the meantime to see my unfortunate family restored by it to a possi- * Letter to Ormonde, 18th Sept., 1650. t “ D. Hugo O’Neill in arce regia sine ullius accessu aut recessu tenatur. D. Alexander M ‘Donnell in alio distincto loco tenetur captionis.” — Letter of Fr. Franciscus Magruairk [Mac or O’Rourke], a S. Maria. Spic. Ossor.y Vol. I., p. 360. IN IRELAND. 557 bility of deserving well of the Crown, which a long and sad experience will have taught them to value as they ought to.” The letter to the King was in substance the same as that written to Ormonde. No attention seems to have been paid to those letters. In 1673, Charles conferred the title of Earl of Tyrone on Kichard Power, Lord Le Poer and Curraghmore, from whom it has descended to the present Marquis of Waterford. I have not been able to obtain the date of Hugh Duff O’NeiH’s death, but the presumption is, that it occurred before 1673, when the Earldom of Tyrone passed from the O’Neills to a family unconnected with them or Ulster. — See Gilbert’s learned and interesting Preface to the third Volume of the Aphorismical Discovery^ p. xl. et seq. Note D.— Baggot Hath (pp. 475-6). On maps of the city of Dublin and its environs, the word Baggotrath is found printed across a considerable portion of ground at the south side, stretching from St. Stephen’s green towards Ball’s bridge and Donny- brook. The name is said to be derived from the family of Baggot or Bagot, once the owners of the property ; the exact site of the Bath itself can- not be now fixed with certainty as no trace of it has existed for a long time, but a pretty accurate approximation to it can be arrived at. When the battle of Eathmines was fought, Baggotrath was in a ruinous state, and was intended to be strengthened only in a temporary manner by Ormonde in order to afford accommodation for a detachment of troops, sufficient to prevent the Dublin garrison from feeding their horses on the pastures south of the Liffey. In Sir W. Petty’s map of the county Dublin, Eathmines is placed immediately south of St. Kevin’s — now well within the city — which would be that part of Eathmines at present adjoining Portobello bridge. If we draw a line from a point a little south of Portobello bridge to Eingsend (then the usual landing place from England), Baggotrath, as figured on the map, would fall somewhat to the west of the line, and a little nearer to Eingsend than to Eath- mines. Carte says Baggotrath was only half a mile from the latter place, but it was probably a full English mile ; at the same time it must be borne in mind that Ormonde’s army covered a large space of ground, so that a portion of it may have been encamped within half a mile of Baggotrath. Having examined the locality in which Baggotrath must have stood, it seems to me that its site may be fixed with much probability east of Lower Baggot street, a little to the south of its junction with Merrion row. The name Baggotrath still exists in that place. There is a small street or lane called Baggotrath place, running from Lower Baggot street, nearly opposite to Lower Pembroke street, to the rere of the houses on the south side of Merrion square, and making a right angle with them. The house in the square opposite to the rere of which Baggotrath place terminates, has, like others of those houses, two numbers, the old number being xi., and the new one 77. It is the eleventh house from Upper Merrion street, and is notably higher than the neighbouring houses. Everything leads to the conclusion that Baggotrath stood at this place or in the immediate vicinity of it. There are no houses marked on Petty’s map between Baggotrath and the Liffey, except Trinity College, which is considerably to the west of the above imaginary line ; a place known as Lazers hill, east of the line, is represented by some dots, probably indicating a few small houses. 5o8 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH So that the large space which falls between Baggotrath at one side, and Trinity College and Ringsend on the other, represents the fields in which the horses of the city garrison were accustomed to graze. Note E. — James IL “ The attestation of Sir David Nairne concerning what he knew of the life and virtues of the late King of Great Britain, James the Second.” TRANSLATION. Paris, 1734. “As I have the honour of having been near thirteen years in the service of the late King of Great Britain, James the Second, of blessed and holy memory, of having followed him, in that time, to Ireland, La Hogue, and Calais, and of having been everywhere a witness of his holy life’ especially at St. Germain’s, where I had likewise the misfortune to be present at his last sickness and death ; it is supposed that I, old as I am, at the age of seventy-nine years almost complete, I may be still able to recollect some circumstances of the life of that prince To begin, I can attest with truth, that I have always observed in King James the Second, of happy memory, a great fund of goodness and religion, an upright mind, a good heart, a great regularity of life, a paternal affection for all bis loyal subjects and servants; and above all, an inviolable attachment to the Holy See, and to the Catholic, Apostolic’ and Roman Religion ; to which he had already sacrificed his three crowns, and was disposed to sacrifice further his life, if necessary, as he often protested. ’ “ I attest that during the residence of that prince at St. Germain’s, he heard ordinarily two Masses every day, one in the morning and another towards noon. That he performed his devotions on all great festivals, and likewise on several other days of the year, and then heard, for the most part, three Masses, and if, on these days, there were Vespers, Sermon, and exaltation of the Host at the parish church of the Recolects,’ he was there ; and in every Lent and Advent, he had sermons in his Chapel thrice a week, and he never failed to go there regularly, attended always by the Queen, his religious comfort, who was likewise,’ as every one knows, an example of piety. They went likewise together’ every year, on foot, to the procession of the Holy Sacrament, with the parish, over all the town of St. Germain’s. On the day and Octave of Corpus Christi, and at the return of the long procession, they staid to hear High Mass at the parish church ; and on every evening during the Octave they were present at the exaltation of the Host ; and as there was scarcely a Sunday or a great holiday during the year but there was an exaltation at the parish church, their Majesties were always present ; and where there was no established fund for saying Mass they ordered one to be said, which kept up a great deal of devotion in the place, and edified every one. “ He charged some of his chaplains to take care, that none of his Catholic servants failed to perform their devotions regularly at Easter “ Hepractised, from time to time, spiritual retirements, for seven or eic^ht days, in some religious house at Paris, from whence he went every day incognito, with a few attendants, to visit churches, and to be present at sermons* Masses and services ; and when it was Easter week, he went to IN IRELAND. 559 the passion sermon and night offices. He was likewise three or four times in retirement at La Trappe ; one of which times I remember to have been, as he was, on his way to La Hogue. He staid there usually three days, practising nearly the same abstinence with the monks, and being present at a great part of their service “ His great charity appeared in this that God gave him grace to forgive cordially all his enemies, and pray for them ; and by name for the Emperor, and even the Prince of Orange, saying aloud, that he was in some measure obliged to his enemies, for the mercy which he hoped God would show him ; because if he had remained on his throne, and continued always in prosperity, he would not, perhaps, have ever thought of the great work of his salvation, as seriously and as efficaciously as he ought.” Macpherson’s Original Papers, Vol, I. [sometimes labelled on back, Vol. HI.] p. 590. This account of the closing years of James the Second’s life will edify every good charitable Christian. Penance for past sins is a leading principle of the religion of Jesus Christ, and Mr, Wade’s sneers at James’s penitential exercises in his retirement manifest his ignorance as well as his malice. Note F. The Parliament which met on 16th December, 1699, took up with great earnestness the question of the forfeited estates in Ireland. A bill was sent up by the Commons for attainting the Irish who had been in arms, and applying their estates to the discharge of the public debts, reserving a power to the King to dispose of the third part of them. The Commons accused him of granting away the estates ;_this was a very sore point for the King and his favourites ; so he promised that the matter should remain as it stood till the next Parliament, and put an end to the session. But the nextsession passed over without the matter being taken up at all. Meantime the King granted away all those confiscations, assuming that it was part of the prerogative of the Crown, that all confiscations accrued to it, and were grantable at the King’s pleasure. They were of the enormous value of over £1,500,000 ! It was alleged that in many cases the lands had been given to unworthy persons. Attempts had been made to have those grants confirmed in the Parliament of Ireland, but the Earl of Athlone’s was the only one confirmed. The Court party endeavoured to defeat the Act of Resumption, by proposing to have it extended back to 1660, and thus include former reigns. This would not be listened to, as it was said the thing would become too perplexing after so long a time. Finally, a commission was given by Act of Parliament to seven per- sons named by the House, to inquire into the value of the forfeited estates, so granted away, and into the consideration upon which these grants were made. The Commissioners took up their duties with great zeal, and in due time presented an exhaustive report. They found that the total value of the lands confiscated, for what they called the late rebellion, amounted to £1,699,343, 14s, besides a grant under the great seal of Ireland, dated 30th May, 1695, passed to Mrs. Elizabeth Viiliers, now Countess of Orkney, of all the private estates of the late King James (except some small part in grant to the Lord Athlone), containing 95,649 acres, worth per annum, £25,995, 18s.* “ The Commissioners having examined this report, on the 15th of * This lady appears to have been first favourite with William, as he made her a countess, aud endowed her so royally. 2 N 560 THE BATTLE OF THE FAITH IN IRELAND. December, came to an unanimous resolution, ‘ that a bill be brought in to apply all the forfeited estates and interests in Ireland, and all grants thereof, and of the rents and revenues belonging to the Crown within that kingdom, since the 13th of February, 1688, to the use of the public ; and ordered a clause to be inserted in the bill, for erecting a judicature for determining claims touching the said forfeited estates of Ireland.’ “On the 18th of January, 1700, the Commons entered into a further resolution that the advising, procuring, and passing these grants had occasioned great debts upon the Nation, and heavy taxes upon the people, and highly reflected upon the King’s honour, and that the ojfficers and instruments concerned in the same, had highly failed in the perfor- mance of their trust and duty.” This resolution having been presented to the King, on the 15th of February, he returned the following answer on the 21st. “ Gentlemen — I was not only led by inclination, but thought myself obliged in justice, to reward those who had served well, and particularly in the reduction of Ireland, out of _ the estates forfeited to me by the rebellion there. The long war in which we were engaged did occasion great taxes, and has left the Nation much in debt ; and the taking just and ejBTectual ways for lessening that debt, and supporting public credit, is what, in my opinion, will best contribute to the honour, interest, and safety of the kingdom.” This answer, coolly ignoring the very grave question put before the King by the Commons, infuriated them, and they at once resolved “ That whoever had advised it had used his utmost endeavours to create a misunderstanding and jealousy between the King and his people.” They then proceeded with the Bill of Eesumption, that is with the bill for taking back the forfeited estates from those to whom the King had given them. The Court party were in fear and trembling over the matter, yet were not without some hope that the Lords would And a way of shelving the question ; but the Commons anticipating this, consolidated the Bill of Resumption with a money bill, so that both should be passed or neither. Thus did the Commons triumph over the King and House of Lords. The Commons believed, justly as it seems to me, that Lord Chancellor Somers inspired the King’s answer. This so enraged them, that with closed doors, to exclude peers and favourites from the House, they pro- ceeded with the debate on the report of the Commissioners of the for- feited estates. Afterwards a question was moved “ that an address be made to his Majesty, to remove John Lord Somers, Lord Chancellor of England, from his presence and Councils for ever.” But the motion did not command a majority. However, the King had seen and heard enough to cause him, after some time, to ask Somers to give up the custody of the great seal, which he vehemently refused to do, without a written command from his Majesty. This command the King accordingly sent him . — Harrises Life of William III., Vol. IV., p. 315, etseq., <&c.^ 561 APPENDIX I. The Act for the Eegistering of the Popish Clergy is a portion of that singularly complete system of laws enacted in Queen Anne’s reign, for the annihilation of the Catholic Eeligion in Ireland. It has challenged the admiration of many distinguished men, on account of the consummate skill with which it was framed for the attain- ment of its object. Burke says of it : — “ You abhorred it, as 1 did, for its vicious perfection. For I must do it justice. It was a com- plete system of coherence and consistency; well digested and well composed in all its parts. It was a machine of wise and elaborate contrivance ; and was well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man.” {Letter to Langrishe, p. 87.) It has often occurred to the Author, when reading over the penal statutes of Anne’s reign by the light of Catholicity as it exists to-day amongst us, that the crafty men who drew them up with such diabolical skill, might as well have applied themselves to the making of laws for the abolition of the Shamrock in Ireland. Two points in this Act are well worthy of attention. 1. The preamble says, “ Whereas two Acts lately made for banishing all Eegulars of the Popish Clergy out of this Kingdom, and to prevent the Popish priests from coming into the same, &c. 2. And it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid that no Popish parish priest shall keep or have any Popish Curate, Assistant or Coadjutor, &c.” So that as no more priests were to be permitted to come into Ireland, and as parish priests were to have no assistants — in one generation Popery was to be a thing of the past amongst us ! Still it survives — “ not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of youthful life and vigour.” AN ACT roR REGISTRING THE POPISH CLERGY. Whereas two Acts lately made for banishing all Eegulars of the Popish Clergy out of this kingdom, and to prevent Popish Priests from coming into the same, may be wholly eluded unless the govern- ment be truely informed of the number of such dangerous persons as 562 still remain among us : for remedy whereof, be it enacted by the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in the present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that all and every Popish Priest or Priests who are now in this Kingdom, shall not at the next general quarter sessions of the peace to be held in all the several counties, and counties of cities or towns throughout this kingdom, next after the feast of St. John the Baptist, which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and four, return his or their names and places of abode to the respective clerks of the peace in the several counties, or counties of cities, or towns in this Kingdom, where the said Popish Priests shall dwell or reside, together with his or their age, the parish of which they pretend to be Popish Priest, the time and place of his or their first receiving Popish Orders, and from whom he or they first received the same ; and shall then and there enter into sufficient sureties, each in the penal sum of fifty pounds sterling, that every such Poinsh Priest shall he of jpeaceable behaviour, and not remove out of such county where his or their j)lace of abode lies, into any other part of the Kingdom : and all and every Popish Priest or Priests who shall not make such return, and enter into such recognizance with sufficient sureties as aforesaid, and being thereof convicted at the Assizes or General Quarter Sessions of such County, or Counties of Cities, or Towns wherein he or they shall dwell or be apprehended, shall severally be committed to the common Gaol of the respective Counties, Cities, or Towns where he or they shall be convicted, there to remain without bail or mainprize till he or they be transported. And that all and every Popish Priest or Priests so convicted as aforesaid, shall be transported out of this Kingdom, in like manner as Popish Eegulars, and incur like penalties upon their return into the same as are inflicted on Popish Eegulars, by an Act entitled, “ An Act for banishing all Pafists exercising any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and cdl Piegulars of the Popish Clergy out of this Kingdom A and all and every the clerks of the Peace are hereby required to transmit within twenty days after every such Quarter Sessions aT and every such return to the Clerk of the Council in this Kingdom, upon the penalty to forfeit to her Majesty, her heirs and successors, the sum of ten pounds sterling for every such neglect to do the same ; the said penalty to be recovered by bill, plaint, or information in any of her Majesty’s Courts of Eecord : which transmitting of the said return shall be incumbent on them, the said Clerks of the Crown and Peace, to prove by a receipt in writing, under the hand of the said Clerk of the Council, who is hereby required, without fee or reward, to give such receipt, on the penalty of twenty pounds sterling ; which said penalty is to be recovered by bill, plaint or information, in any of her Majesty’s Courts of Eecord : which return, so transmitted, shall be kept by the said Clerk of the Council, to be viewed by any person requiring to see the same without fee or reward. 563 And to the end that such Popish Priests as lately have been, or may be convicted of the errors of the Eomish Church may not suffer through want of maintenance or other mischievous effects of resentment of bigotted Papists : be it enacted that every such Popish Priests being approved of as a convert, and received into the church by the Archbishop or Bishop of the Diocese wherein he or they lived or resided, and conforming himself to the Church of Ireland, as by law established, and having taken the oaths, and made and subscribed the declarations in such a manner as the conformable clergy of the Church of Ireland are obliged to do, at any Quarter Sessions, in any County or City aforesaid, such converted Priest or Priests shall have and receive the sum of twenty pounds sterling yearly and every year during their residence in such County for their maintenance, and until they are otherwise provided for; subject nevertheless to suspension or deprivation of the Archbishop or Bishop of the diocess wherein he or they shall dwell or reside, in like manner as the rest of the inferior clergy of this Kingdom ; the said sum of twenty pounds to be levied on the inhabitants of such County, or Counties of Cities, or Towns where such converted Priest or Priests did last officiate or reside, in like manner as money is levied that is charged by Grand Juries upon the said Counties, or Counties of Cities, or Towns, and to be paid him or them by equal moieties, viz. : one moiety at the Feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the other moiety at the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel, in every year : and every such convert or converts shall publicly read the Common Prayer or Liturgy of the Church of Ireland, in the English or Irish Tongue in such place and at such times as the said Archbishops or Bishops shall direct or appoint. And it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no Parish Priest shall keep or have amj Popish Curate^ Assistant^ or Coadjutor : and that all and every Popish Priest that shall neglect to register himself, pursuant to this Act, shall depart out of this Kingdom before the twentieth day of July, which shall be in the year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and four, on pain of being prosecuted as a Popish Eegular Clergyman : and that all such Popish Priest and Priests that shall neglect to register him or them- selves as aforesaid, and remain in this Kingdom after the said twentieth day of July, shall be esteemed a Popish Eegular Clergy- man, and prosecuted as such. Provided always, that this Act shall be given in charge at every General Assizes ; and the list of such Priests that are registered shall be publicly read after the charge given : this Act to continue in force for five years, and until the end of the next succeeding parliament, and no longer. We give the following specimens of the way in which the names were registered : — Com. Ar- ( A LIST of the Names of the Popish Parish Priests as they are Register’d at a General Sessions of the magh. ( Peace held at Lurgan, for the said County of Armagh, the Twelfth day of Juhj, 1704 , and were since Return’d up to the Council Office in Dublin, pursuant to a Clause in the late Act of Parliament, Intituled, An Act for Begistring the Popish Clergy. 564 i ^ o to a> S S-S i ^ a s o ; a . 0.43 CO g " '"'So iU s 6 l T3 cf ”J . "i c 5 ® ^li ill a m ^ O Q> J O 0 ) . il “li » c3 M S c5 bCO 3 60 S'S a 3-3 o 3o M rf p M •-a ^ >> _• >?a go >> >> o o « o r/T*^ S C-H as as 3 a 3 S J S ^ ^ o g 8 i fl 8 .75 ^ 2 O I® 2 § ►26 :7 o«3 oo 8 24 E-i ;>H 1-1 E-i O « S' . ■O •+* 8 ® g bo " ■ O -E 2 O .5 6 ^ bfi a r-\ ^ ■d> • 'all o . p O J • 3 ^ > '3 ^ o S S5 O 6 II « -==1 W-d 75 x a ”"£ S s p 3 8 S, SI: r P, ri-S O 02 g ■g bo^ rt 6-2 ao^ s- !-0 ® (3j >0 < = 2 il cs.a-s ^ 5 t 4 J3 a; g ^ § fl <5 .a a § 3 | oi 03 & pa a ^ ^ § P| X s 'S S5 C3 a> P a (D bo ^ § d S r5 S A S-. "S ; 5 I ^ ’a pa '^1 Ms 44 -g .2 a .sa sa o ^ A ^ rS3 C3 +3 S ^ K O ..M 'o M Q o •4>^ S' I cS lJ ■-o § O P r4 0^ .S . ,^1-0 rt ^ • i-H e+_i o I I O ^ ^ § S o o a 2 (4 sq S3 -3 -s> o eS O P3 S '3^ J .S M ■^ 53 '^ rPa 44 -?r a 3 S DC o ^ S O P5 ^ <3 CM - ^ o o 'i -2 a H “ ^ a a 4 a p^ pa M a> Bi p' « Q ” ’ 3 . ^ a p ^ 1 : 2 ^ M D O 3 GO S Q „ 3 ^ "O 3 P ^CQ P tr- CO !>^ o 3 o d .s' [siD 'a O o P d oT bO 3 P CO o CO b- 150 CO o o rd .2 S ^ p ^ . ® -a ^ BP -a t'^'^ ^ cmM _d >o o '50 !>^ d .S BJ . I" s . 43 'So 43 BP __d O 60 s o3 d CO a w oo o p 3 D GO eh" H 1-0 IQ ’§) ’a 42 +3 cS M -> 43 t=^ > bJD' d 43 O 60 565 w 5 -o s ^ § ' 2 - -aSsf g SW 2 ^rA>^ on 2 . O 60 .O rM V TJ 2 i >5 fl ^3 . «s = iL i S' s' ® li^ ^ Ot 3 fl'S ^Slllil^'g Nl s“| a“g woe & b • |sg a ^1 2 •^'5 o wio o 2 e M S aj ^ S 6 ica S 'O d ? WO-b •^S "s°- ^■'§3 I be O Is.’- t - a a “ 6 o o c'^ O I'S 2 n” tx ^ T3 fl ■g- 3 c gfii a H ^ o oso ^ a ” fss a >^fcp s Cl a o "1- t -5 oS.'S r- c 3 iw ” -fi a o! O O) c 3 i-s beT: i >% ' "C p, - "^o 'is H 'S Q W cf“ 1 ^ cw O O B ^ ^1 S t oS 3 o'^ 5 C 43 a C o be - ^ o ^ §• .sa ^:s -§s ..2 . §■ S-I s:i< i- qL Q o 0 ? 'Si fM S' a: ?- .2 -£ c> o h a, Pc 2 ;-i cS 0 rt d ^1 =^p o - O -g^o S-* Jj _ H fe g cS CL, m o o •S:S -p> ^ d > Cl. O ^ O ■£ o s>^ '£ ^ S=! P P3 < p 0 0 w 0 0 Q 0 - 00 CO 00 !>• «C CO CO CO CO CO CD CO CO r-4 7—1 1— H r— < T— 1 rH I— 1 7 — H ? 51 D (D f-, o 64-1 O d CL, -4-3 I Ph 1 &J0 2 o 64-1 o • pH Pi d pH -+3> Pi d Ph g p Pi Q ts p p p . -I p e 3 6 C o fco p a P3 ^ S 2 53 TO — h* ^ rp o M 8 W %o § 2 ""I i c P3 a i S^ P -g P ^ § o 'i p c« a . 5 'S) M I b rP W 5 ^ tO’r! . P cS O ^ a s :^0 1 12 ^ •§ .a VO rH Jr- CO CO VO 10 10 VO VO VO VO a? m c? P' • pH rW 0 rS • pH 0 a 4 * Sescagh Magerre C.T. Creenag do. • ^ d a> d I3 H 0 P H 0 P p o o ^ >^ c 3 .0 w p p J fc'^TVfeH 2ss“ P 'o p p 1 -^ a 'I -I KS a 5 o ^ a § 3 ^ c 3 CS 1^ P ^ g "S ■£ J p p &J[) w ^ p’ ?J O O) 02 1 ^ ^ p^ Com. ( A LIST of the Names of the Popish Parish Priests as they are Pepster'd at a General Sessions of the Dublin. \ Peace held for the County of Dublin, at Kilmainham, the 13th day of July, 1704, and were since Peturn’d up to the Council Office in Dublin, pursuant to a Clause in the late Act of Parliament, Intituled, “ An Act for Registering the Polish Clergy. 566 I .s o-S S-g-N O o CO ^ ■ 5 =3 So lO'® ,, <3^ ^o ^ o OJ rC T3 2 • ci S-O! I a> rQ o O blj 33 ■4^ !>4 pS s- s o d O Comibra Lisbon, Olmutz, Lisbon. Creggin, 1— 1 o CO r-H Oi Ci <05 00 CD CO CO CO CO r— ! rH r— i I— i rH ce 0 o3 1 cS CZ2 bJO a; p P3 > P-O Q a o ^ d I . - p cS O !>• 1 ^ o| Pw p 9 rS PH O 02 Pi. P •5 ^ So CM O) o g PU o £» C« ^ i- d. <1^ 03 O ^ !-l 'T3 P M ^ ?-,|-| PP pq p d ^ S PH PP I § - . . P £“ S gfe Jl ^ O o <1 Ph Q pq cf CM rrt 'W .2 fl o ^ o p.P O o ■£ diH2 'i^'S c3 1 Haig'S o 5J0 03 CZ2 P P O O ii s p^ s pq K? ,P o3 -M 6X) ^ P 2'^! .p t>^ ^ ^ -s -M p 3 ?-l ^ ^ 'S CL, o 'P 20 9 o <1 o p M pq Q <1 -M M s § o O O ^ M ^ • s -s s ^ 2 p! ^ 2 o M 03 03 .r^ P o 00 lO O bO 00 OO o 30 00 'TH 02 ■73 ^03 mO *9 1 M P a -M 2 C3 o 2 bJD P . p P CC •I-H M o , ^ -3 M O P p ^ rH OQ p Ph 3 Ph M ft 03 M M P 03 cS ^ &J0 O tH pq 9 p ^ -o O TS += CS M -M M . • p 9 p ■g |pq -M 0 rP H o P^ rP ^• P TO nl .03 S I 03 ^ .qs 03 P3 M bju g g bX) P 9 I :zi !>^ P P 03 o o (M CP o oo C3 I-H cq Ob r—i CM t:^ -HH 00 QO X:^ Xr- o C3 x^ OS X^ OS Pb CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP I— 1 I— ( I— 1 I— 1 I— 1 I— < r— I I— 1 1—1 1— 1 1—1 1—1 1— ( 7—1 p 1 o ■73 p p LP M C3 O P 02 *7:3 P P . rH ^ a ^ 2 o o p "bJD -M P ■-d o Swords. -M P 9 p o Killeney M P a -M O Ph Finglas i garets, Balmadr rinsto' Donnybi p bJO 3 p ‘m P O Q •73 03 rP 1-9 2 tS3 2 CL P HP o Escor. Saggard. Lucan. • p _d P ^ 9 iH [5 J 9 2 p^P fl Jb "S o "p o* ^ P 3 'g 2.’S a ^ ^ C 3 ce ce :-’ o p P «5JD . P g P 'P '-O ‘C3 M ^ 9 03 ^ 03 9 • .9 S p^ 8 i 568 “•s U 93 c2 •I N ^ s 8 ® I « s g s« rti S El H gS - g 4.- a "E ‘ s-fi-al S gs ^ oM .j o CQ a 'B ^ .22 a eg 5 -; ^ rn cs 5^ o ^ . 03 a ll CM P OH o 0.2 :! § p g <1 Or^ .2 .2 S P H os H g ^ >73 43 C« 03 O.PH M O H;g O rg § .2 I -gg I “i Jh .s a o O “..H o o H i o p fig <1 p +3 ^ 4J ■s I § I g « 4 _l ^ tM ^0^0 3^ S |P O <1 H? g o s ® O O M C3 p4 g o p c3 y. g cs &i3 P O Q *« & l}l p p g g o o'! I C« O) p p !? O .P O >-v O S -2 P ■s 2 S 3^ g g-i O g GQ O • •S|’& s.§ § ” . 03 lO r^ 03 lO CM IP r-H o iO ^ S-i >.2 03 %> JS Cu ’ll •S ® o^ ” O "S TJ "C S c«^ a®V 03 03 g P o o a > pH m g3 g o g c3 rg fcJO o g:; C 3 o P ■w) § g g o o ■73 •a g •+3 g o O g • 1^ o at^a^ ^ M fl .c Ci •5^ :2 8 .S 3 « ■§ Jj^fl raofSjoSS EhW I « o ^ 02 • 02 '7^ ca .^TW d2 o O) "o *0 Ph-^ 2 O O ^ T; rg g eg S o oTdS 2 2 -r! p g 222 “g_ 222 ‘=^'og-^'^ 569 ja ^ ^ •73 a> c3 O ^ s §1 •is^ sS-g ■^-^J fl ^ ® <1^ t*- -s O ^ c« .2- 33 T— I ^ 03 2 bJO-^ ® -O Cd ^ ?S ce c3 jg ® «4_ o3 ^ ° S » -fe'Ss: ®3 G < i^ajl .2 r^ S O tU s M :s^-s| c3 o Ah ^ S^ £ “ i-s o-sa|> rC ^ ® o to ^ +=> "o 03 S ®3 ^ s£ s-n s 3 •“TS B_- H S ZQ c3 H-l ® h:i Ah ® -+3 .ri ^3 H H ^ ^ s 8q^ ^ .2 ^jd ^ /n^ ‘' m-i o .'•^ ,'*^ r*^ ® d H ^ H a* ^ H f;^ n:3 ^ a dd -• TO 03 ® o3 ® ® H ^ 6 M • ^ .fh o Q-i ^ ^ •s w .2 i ^ cc g -- a s §■#§ ® L^ 2 t-l o >■ id tH P3 „ . »m^ o »M a^' 5 H r-^ 03 o o3 > 03 o ;>> c3 I3 O f-i o3 as a O o ^-H O CO 0 - CO 00 00 03 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 1—1 I— 1 r-H 1— 1 r— 1 1—' I— 1 rH t-H 1—1 i-H I — 1 ad bX) 03 © 'S) O ft '■a _ i=> --a . c3 a ® a o © 5 ,3 ^ ^ >^ft ^ a ra =3 a <33 o _3 a a a ft a ra § S r2 ft S 3 ri4 © a c3 ft ^ ft 6 a c3 a H a 0 ft 1 ^a ’C a ft r—H ft a? o3 0 €3 a a ft 0 to 0 ^^^ 0 a ft B s > § ft © a 0 o3 f-i nd © . M rt . ||m '^’a s n bL a a 5,-„-a g •« ,5 s J -a § g g a a a o o^ a ^ ©^g'ft'j^ a^^l^ b'ti b = agp,^ 0 )O|OgW|«^^§^.aj^ ^ ^ P 'S a 570 o si -1 CJ « o a g 6 E 2 S S o « ^ ^T5 S-C g :h O H . _ . _ '-5 <3^ •+^ -M H .H ^ .S ® S OT a> fs cu'S, ^ ^ M iZitH 8 o Jld • ‘d . to f£j o ^.S $ii rt-, S W .§:(^ ts P S ^ d ft §W-5 5 h? fS ft. 0) H O) Ph rO rP o <1 -4J H -5 . S p rP CS g « P ^ P Pi ^ O ft ^ . M § H ^ a ^ .1 2 P M-l lZI ^ ftp toW^g a P p.a “ a ft o r P rP - PhJP 8 oft ft Sc i>~.o ^ -a ^ 8 .£P B '£3 ;-i cS O -§ o c3 P rP s> !-l -U o M a> bx) bo (H !-i O 00 00 10 o P OJ 3 g P S o ft d i| 3 I pO p c^ p O ft ^ P 0 03 1 § .a 03 S ft <-i bO ;< p O P P pS O ft O C« ft o ft P o3 ft bO ft bO c3 P O .S 03 ft CS a 03 ft 03 P ft" P ft ft P o3 ft ^ bO egy co 03 ft bO 5P p p ^ ft O ft p ft 03 ft ?-l d ft o H I ft o p ^ a d 0 ^ 03 1 O^ ft p ft Ct 5 03 14 a-a a-i^-l ill iilil a «| g^1 i ^ p 8w)§'pi=i[ij9a2yi3s'=^ -^1^ '-2^'^ 13 a 'd Bp. of Clonfert. 571 H H CO oT ^ a ^ f-l fH O 1> ^ pq pq I d. c w a d, o m Q • H .S a H d 0^0^ CO pq §W 1-7) H ” 3 .H '+-( o o m to lo 2 o H-S <1 ^'a S o ^•' o s' g -- g a" I 8o|9 sS^^s SS^-s o . p-< S' a, &■ .l>f^i^.§>l i:s S)l p 02 03 a t-i Pm Loughrea. Gallway, Oranmore, Do. Cloonbar. Gallway. Cloonbar. Deareen. Kilkenny. Kilconnel. Kilkenny. o o 1— t CO C3 CO CO 00 ir- 1:^ 1:^ 00 Ir- r- <93 l:'- 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO co CO >— H t-H I — 1 T — 1 1— 1 1 — I 1 — ' T— 1 T— ( I— ( ® CO ^ CO S f§ 03 W , 4^03 B 9 15 ^ 2 C 3 O "5 pq_ o o r^ CO '2 !>. O o b?d ■TP c c3 a o fl i-P 4 T! CS sJ-^ o o :SS S 03 02 'tS c3 03 I— I 12 ‘tt. CO 03 2 4-2 <33 ■fH rC n3 B a rP c3 lO lO <93 lO o 00 CO o oo o p^ i=! pq 03 fl O O T? pq . • a 03 rC ^ M 2 ® B 1^1 bJD s o <0) 2 9S Q .rt 03 ,-a « (?3 c5 O i=l CO -n-i o:> .2 1=3 . ^ ^ !=^B o 2 ^ e-^ 8 r1 ” O I— I 03 B '2^ CO fco 03 rO o J~ CIS o §.^'§>>>'3 ■•-9 ^ . c3 ,t>i 03 &X) ^ 2 ^ 2 §, i g ;2 o OX) Q ' vJ bD79 G . ^ 2^ d fH a hB SB!^ ^2 BotP a B ?H “ '-rf.-S <^•2^ S«B 43 ■5^us;§ I sM iM 'i ^ 2 a l-7> 572 - CO 05 P-» 4* ^ O 111 ^ 5 ! ■« > “ ^ -c -1 gl-H o-Q ^ -o 9.8V CL, s . CS o M i ^ i !-i ^ o o -*-^ . ^ H ^ H S H § r.^ <5? S o ^ W'S^ ® ^-i o H Q o a “ o3 S3 c® bCj , . 4+-1 2 ^ o o ^ o G.P^ C^g o o 2 p-d “ j3 E ^ §:i ^ w |pq S g ^ M S ^ .s ■s ^ 4‘m ^ w I ’§ § I O S d ^ |PQ ^•s «+-( -d ® B o Q , H ^ • p-l cu'-R ^ . p S3 - -^ ti rH^ ?H 5 - " § i S- mS S “ o 53 « ‘SW g-feUS-S Q-i Pnr^ Qj ^ CL, M ?. 2 ^ ^ OJ s rt CL, c/2 cT o C! c« s c3 C/2 U1 .B ^d SIh 02 d Ph zn <£ 0 S3 o3 bJD rd 1 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ?0> CO r— H I— 1 r—l T— 1 I— 1 1— 1 I— < r—l r— H r— 1 p— 1 CS pH = S § 1 SjS 2 ^ =« cS M tpii a c3 s a cS 'S -a <1 ?-> 0 d Cap mo Clonb Ballyl fn p^ 1 Pp bc 0 0 .2 PQ c3 0 0 03 c3 d -d o3 0 Rue. 6 c3 03 M bJO cc bfi ^ --d ^ pq a o pa ^ o ) , 02 w 6 d -9 'd a o 9 'S pd ^ a 2 d a"opq_2 ^ ^gra.2 g;3 il,S‘;«. 9 ii(Sg 111 1*^ jl*^^-pMH|la| “m^gg a (_j^ Ht) 573 r5 .'^: t; ^ 2 a s g ^ 2 g .'S . .'S . ^ gofl4|4| 1 .2 2 ^ &J0 O^ . ® bC a,cq ‘^r! M *1=! ® IrH 'rQI— '«4-lHHM-lrt .C •jS^^gcQ'^&Jcici, . ® '^bc Onp:; S "f ^ M I s - I 5 'S -S = tS i i-^-^i-? ft Eh ^ftJft a a> o, .a^CQ J ft o3 O r^: o 'E c3 O bo c3 a? s < -H bJO <1 '^5 PI c3 -+:> •a . g a 03 i-i 0 a o3 fl <33 0 pd bO e3 i P 0 'o a ri <33 0 0 a a m 0 0 1— H a p s \2 0 ft a p 0 ft sa x>. P^ P <33 p c ft ft <33 a p 0 ft 0 rX3 bO C3 o o a» a> (X) bX3 O) u O CO CO t:- 00 CO CD S s ft •73 D c3 ® 111 ,-0 c 3 o bO H- O I O u 03 Pi O O -t^ o ^_p g y ^^►-^(i^ftftgpqg . p g g o ft.^bO ^ 03 W a y p p pS P o o d S«^a| .’xi ^ ® s'i^Sio o .a p o p o bb p 8 2 O Owen Eeily. Turlogh. |37 Killcroan. |1697 Ballylooge. Murtagh Donnellan, j Tit. Bp. of Clonfert. Teige Ballyna- |46 Killcooly. 1683 Creggeene. Teige Keogh, Tit. Donnellan. osteJl. | Bp. of Clonfert. i 574 &/D O . O r-) O 5 =4-1 uJ d. ^ g d| § I<1 W dD ) d • n d ft -+J , ^ I o § ^ O « q_ 2 '41 a o ft „ft s:!. o dd 02 d to -G S 2 Iw l<1 ^ >~5 pC ^ ^ >:0 ^ 0) d -G &0 2 Md M 3 o3 Cloonba Galway. Conge. G G Ix 00 O lx 00 lx 00 00 iS'S « to -u Is 'rt ^ ilmadaugh Beagh. illymordaly. d G o o no fo c3 G G D ft 2 o -1-3 o3 ft ft &JD O G O o > ft Cfl .2 G &• ft nd 1 t > G d o fi G o ft -43 2 o O ft ft G W =^^ CO 05 ^ lO lO CO CO lO cq ft CO Ill'll I M ft d o o G o3 f-i G o 'o CO ft &0 o3 ft fco o ‘2 &• c3 O o G "g G o ft O s O ft O c3 O H 2 o ft -43 <1 5 l-CJ ^ ^ ^ s fl _d ft G . &i0 0) 25-" > 2 S Sft-a’S op ^ Mds-iSdd.ds-i'^ -■-' — ■ CO G 9 G 1*^ ® 02 tJ2 O O 575 ^ "S 's § ^ a o .r o ® “Hf„g o ^ t 4 -l O ^ i/J <15 l+H ^ fl ^ cc ^ Ph . a t+H &Co ^ n O W O . a/j a. Jpq p §H ■§ o o too o o o 3 cq f>» a O <05 to o o c~ Oi CO o •s •I 05 0 a "o cq .§ g ;-i s A 05 P p oS 05 too p o3 P f-i P O "IS 05 rP CO 05 Pi p o o 2 5 O ‘P 1— 1 6 o o o o O CO i 5 - oo iO CO CO to 05 >> ± Pi o 05 p CQ O f-i p 2 2 ” d ^.2 "P P 3 CO <73 o CQ O § o 3 TS eO o pq O l 4 o o O ^ fl 60 0 es ;=3 O o3 Ofe rt fl ^ 2 ta^S . .2 a pq Ph ® a . ?-i 2 P " .2 ” >:> S O ^ o „ f-< K.* O a 05 o Offi 2 o 576 o g *4-1 nf C) n.s §■ § 2 {Xj ^ /«^ O 53- ® ^ g ^ S *2 -S 'tP 2 3-2 O p3 2 Cr H gOf^ M c3 © (-^ <33 (-; 1^ Ph ^ l-g^ sgs ® K ■*"’ g a-2 c3 S tC ^ S-a s « g •s •2> 6 H .H_. I ilj ©03^ ^ ^ PP ° a . wi 3 h cS O-t |PS W ^ b ■ s' ° p .22 d pq 3;^ OQ t^.O^ o* i-s B §m 1-5 0? 52 ^ ^ f-i e^ kT O uSPh bo ’cO “ r^ .2 3^ f-i cr' , a I - III .2 3,^ Oh-S O Or? o § r3 -g ^ P-l §^ g.S 0.2 .^3 PHPp^pq^.22^ P^H S-4 r— 3 © '-3 pP 5 risS O^^O M-( (sT^ti o S <=> d-b ^ p§'«2^ « ^1 ^ o 03 <3 T3 a> ij 5 a > 2 -g Ph p CO -g’o IS ::§ O ft, |S <» o-a m o fl| 83v P 3 © pi4 3 c3 ft e« r£3 p p © - GO t:^ i>- CO lO CO 03 CO CO CO CO co CO CO CO CO CO I— 1 r— t t— I r-^ 1— ) r— 1 >— ' I— 1 I— 1 c8 ^ O £ S B 0-13 g, s ^ « ^ X* ^ tx'cS E S a5 gm |W I § 1 I fi-s § «|f .gg §3-^ ^ rt o &i 3 tDJB P 5 c3 i|s||& r 4» W a> a :=i 04 S 2 S 2 g §0 o P c © . ® bP 3 ^ f>> 3 P © «i (2; j3 2 g P t— IQ ^ ^ o J_ -"P §D ^ ^ st^'i -2 g O H o CO « ^ 2 C p 03 ®> . m <0 0) Pi .."S S P dS S c4 P « ^ § d^ 2 w ^ ‘S -P ^ bbi— I CO lO lo o CO o CO O Ui 'p >% § g=a I o a J tZ2 6 ..2 6 §)§.&-| § §1 ft ^ g^ g, ^ eg c3 or o 5 o P “Slz; ■§* Pm 'p b CC ' .S a nf o HH 2 o5 Cj M P3 ^ PI ^qa}ir2M'3-Jw©'^_;cO g| 2'3S^‘i S)2 J|-^ I iSOlGlaukene and Im 577 Ph O bbg o ^ ‘S H Q. 02 r 3 ,X 3 oS 03 .2 -m" bjo - o p §D a T, a ^ -3 M ^ ^ ffi ' 5 |‘:'S'«‘s-s M ^ a a g S .s 2 d. § d.w o ^ ^pq rt O * ^ jP pH 't>- mh P ^ ^ o P O Eh o «! rr c3 '-' p 5*_l o o Sh . 2 §<1 1— S P a p o Ph tuo p •+3 o CM p o3 !>> t M 0 H-i bC P Cm CD 'm 03 'm ui M 0 43 P i .P iS ip to o3 CD o3 K] P P 03 0 e+H §3 "ca 0 d CM 0 o3 0 p Q 03 P^ o3 cq a pp 03 ca 0 - CO 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 t- to 03 CO CD CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO i—t t-H 1-^ ' — 1 1— < r^ t-H T— 1 1-H r— 1 i-H r— 1 P3 o a o § 1 s _=■ -^ :il;a H op,- § M a f o O o ci P^ 2 o S nni ® ^ O) :2:3 1^ JH O „ 03 o 2 - 7:3 ^ O --d rP 2 S fl .vc 3 £H®ooap^ §W 3 c-|M75 « « Cm O g /2 M Cm o o o W) P o M 03 ■+3 P O 03 ■p^ a 03 Eh o d « ar ml § CS « r!^ oT C3 fl ^ a> . ^ G> a?3 rt M m-o i 4 .f § 2 ij 2 M r^ 03 P. o o , -».= CO ’a s-> o o IQ cS o m a 3fi? § s 21^: ' 1 11^ g.-s « Si’S ^ '^ .- ^ <1 <1 o3 -5 2 ^ a CO CO CO lO QO CO CM CO to CO to p 03 03 P4 J d5 a P4 ^ O P3 O c« ^ P P O bd p Cm 03 ^ -73 cc G g -§ 5 s „ a ^ s| S iS fa JP a C3 P P s O a o M Q i^a f5 ^ eS ^c3| 'S 2 I s? po o M ea . . _ P/ 5 n!^ C 3 03 w '-'PfaPfl^fagO g'i Jw § *P o c3 ;> w^rt.a.s spapso^^a^j^^a.aa p S ^ c« p =« . -55 P a a Pip I CS «S • t-H 3 1 =^ ®3 8 ^ H 2 0/5 p 03 c 3 p 578 a s ^ «X) -- -C 4 o ^ P 'Z 21 £ t> S " 'S f >.o >> P P > p P a> 3 p O) o ’G e« C!5 -s o O O) i ■2 » p p 03 CO CO 20 GO CO t- 20 1-H o CO 1— H CO 03 1:^ 03 00 20 00 03 CO 20 1>- t— C3 oo oo CO CO CO CO CO CO CO co CO CO CO T— 1 r— 1 1-H I™l i—H J— 1 1— t r— * r- 1 i-H I— 1 s St: (U-O o sj si o p-s ^•2 If &PM “ C 2^ o C3 -2 o 773 ^ "Hi o =313 02 ^ O O t>> c3 3 H PH rP 03 ^ P -2 P :a ^ ^ 03 ^ P "H.'a O P ^ "§) 2 ^ ''2 s i •tH § 1 ■2. a 2 2 ^ « “=3 i| — r 1 -^ 1 ^ fl og, c £2 p oq 3 3 ii “ dSy C5 CO A w c3 P2 S tsi SM e5 B (U P &S M ^ P o PH s^ cs ^ 2 02 Cj P CdO ^ P 03 PH P pp Ti U 03 i S g o3 2 PQ 2 2*'§ 03 "o *53 03 S Cj :;h ow Q-S 03 S l« pH 33 CS w ^ rP 02 03 2 'S « ^ O c^ O HP ^ 03 2 g g ^ 2 2 _2 2 HH (=i:.S O s s •+^ 02 o p^ 02 03 g P g c3 O a w P 03 '^'2 P if rP 2 O > M O 5h rp o "TH 03 |v^ o P O CP o O p 03 2 jAs 2 HH p; 03 cs > t o g o p s ^ i o ggisgiig . S ^ . M tlX) 03 oH 03 03 o 03 P o*j «30 g ^ pH . pp S ^P tJ glfl ^ (Ballylosky. 1 48| Ardcrony,Modereny,| 1681 579 I % Ph o 02 |e| m2 QJ O _&X) 'S ::S 02 M o| O MiJ .“I pq'^ CD 1 CD CD a CD CD >% a a CD CD a cS a d a a a M3 u a <1 M o CZ2 02 o o ^bX) ‘53 S3 03 O 2 . a .2 *M3 a> Sh 0 1 Jz; M3 O CO CO 20 Xr- ers CO xo 05 CO o oo 1:^ t- CO X- <35 CO 05 00 X:- CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO r— 1 T— i 1— 1 >— 1 1— 1 I— 1 tH I— t i-H I— I r— I O rd ‘So pq cT S3 . II CN CO i_CD "Oh a o H 02 02 o s-T d hJ o o d "S.g 2 &i)3 d tX) o --d <=^ ^ o iO S3 O o M3 o C3 s o o ^.2 a iSl " S |.2 ' 1^’ M I I o ° K a o *-:> 2 S ;| ^ ^ a» -o Ph c*^ o ri 4 o ^ •' +3 ^ O (U S cc M 03 03 a - o Oh O ri:3 -U r-i _§ ^.2 'a^pq .pq-gpq 'SO M P4 .g o 5 a a Pn.a'S pqn? &b S o o 03 p^ Nd ^ l-H t4_, <33 O *s H « ..a PQ 'Td 1-7) ^ C3 ^ Q <33 a -g O SO o-s pq i^i ^ I 3 P O P o O bC to o riij f-t o o C n3 a m PI cj !s t-i H • 00 C30 00 0 00 i-H 0 1—1 00 io to S'S'B to GO to t- to 0 00 0 c:! 10 to to to to to c- to to • to to ^0 '- »— ' r— t 1 — ( 1^ t— • r— t t-H 1— ( T— 1 t-H I-H 5?.2 ® s £a< -§ o ^eL< ^ ® 033 P. ^ fcg o r o S ^ .Eh £ s s g a 03.^^ c3 rO s o 'S p Ti a a W) . ’S 03 O S W.2 .'73 c3 O gw-g *73 P ej 03 f-i O s M >. ■a^ I « c3 O P § P "m o J zi Iq P bO O P P a s« 03 <1> , sw-a O P a p 5 03 (J3 03 <33 ^ a 03 03 H H 03 a p o 6 aSy 0 0 0 (M C33 GO 10 b- r-l to to U7 10 cq (M CO to 4> ■a 0 3= Hi 1 .a ’0 p ,0 p c3 ip P 73 .P -(H c3 bO 03 !-i P 03 0 a 03 P cS P Bally- tnacagan. urteen. rP op bO a p e« 'o a p s E5 P 0 2 2 0 0 0 "C “1 rt ® a I- 'S}'^ ^ ^ Ph p* p “ •'S <=« a ^ 2 p s cerp feo^ g 03 fl.2 eo C o3 . 73 r-^ C3 • -2 rrt ^ rP ‘P 73 O t>. CO - bOS E P23 h 03 03 S §^i3 I»g g ijj J>§ S §§ I &1s APPENDIX. 581 APPENDIX II. THE IRISH CHURCH MISSIONS. The date of the last letter which appears in the Complete Corres- pondence on the above subject, is the 19th of February, 1864. The following letter from Rev. Mr. Webster, one of the principals in the Correspondence, is dated the 26th of March of the same year, five full weeks later, so that the “ Copy of the Complete Correspondence” may have been printed ofi* when it appeared, or perhaps Rev. Mr. W ebster regarded it as not strictly a part of the controversy in which he had been engaged, as it is chiefly an answer to the criticisms of those who attacked him for the principles he had put forward in that contro- versy. In any case it is well worth preserving for its own intrinsic value, and because it makes the Correspondence more complete. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CORK CONSTITUTION. Sir — In this morning’s impression of your paper a speech of the Rev. Canon M‘Neile appears in behalf of the Irish Church Missions. This speech was made at a public meeting in Hope Hall, Liverpool, on the 21st March, and a gentleman in Dublin sent me this morning a copy of it, cut out of the Evening Mail, In the copy now in my possession some passages, it would appear, were omitted by you ; and although they allude so sharply to ray conduct, I am sorry the public in Cork have not had the advantage of reading them. No person will suppose I can take pleasure in hearing or reading gross' misrepresentations of my conduct ; and, therefore, I should ask, in future, if ever you think it worth your while to copy into your paper from other journals any attack upon me,* you will be good enough to copy the whole documents. My friends in Cork will thus be enabled to see how unscrupulous, in some instances, are these attacks, and how hard it is for an honest man to cope with those who suppress the truth wilfully, or who can stand by and hear the most serious mistakes made by others without correcting such mistakes. One of the passages in the Rev. Canon M‘Neile’s speech to which I am alluding, and which you have omitted in the Constitution^ is the following: — “He (Mr Webster) insinuates that he could tell what he does not tell. He has been asked to do it, and has not done * We are not likely to do this. In the present instance we copied none of the attack, but purposely ||expunged it. — En, Constitution, 582 APPENDIX. it. I hope no Englishman will listen to such calumny, or allow any damage to be done to a society like this by listening to insinuations not endorsed manfully and boldly by him who brings them forward.” It appears from the report that the Rev. H. C. Eade was present when these statements were made, and that Mr. Eade himself made a speech at the same meeting. The mistake made by Canon M'Neile is similar to the mistake made by many others, and I can account for it only upon one supposition that would allow me to call it a mere mistake. The Irish Church Missions thought proper to publish a pamphlet containing only a part of my correspondence, and omitting just that part in which I brought forward some, but I submit, quite sufficient proof of all the charges I had alleged. If what I have already published as my proofs be deemed by the Irish Church Missions insufficient, let some officer of the society plainly say so, and then I shall be quite willing to submit some other documentary evidence to the public. But so far the Irish Church Missions have not impugned the veracity of my witnesses. I am aware the Irish Church Missions have within the last few days published a pamphlet containing the correspondence in full, but this was not done until four rectors were obliged to edit and publish what they were forced to call “ the only complete copy of the correspondence,” &c., and to complain, as they do in their preface, of the unfairness of the Irish Church Missions. I do not ask you or any one else to become my advocate, but I do ask all who love truth, and who take the slightest interest in the present controversy, to read this pamphlet, edited by four rectors, in which all Mr. Eade’s letters appear, all Mr. Dallas’s, together with a Paper on Conscience by Mr. Dallas, and Mr. Colquhoun’s letter to the Daily Telegm;ph, I have said that Canon M‘Neile’s mistake is similar to the mistake made by many others — that of supposing that I declined to give any proof of the charges I made against the society — the gravest charge of all being that of bribery. Let me give you one or two specimens of the language used by some of your contemporaries. The Christian Examiner, March 9th, 1864 : — “Mr. Webster, no doubt, fully compre- hends the meaning of the word dastardly. It means an attempt at mischief under the control of fear. Suppose, as is probable, that Mr. Webster was acquainted with a lady whose position was one of the highest respectability, and whose character was without reproach, and whose recognised position in society placed her above the reach of taint or stain. What would Mr. Webster think of one who would come to him and say, ‘I could tell you of things, of facts, of persons, of places — I could tell you of instances of what I saw and heard, that would leave this lady’s honour and reputation not worth a straw ’? Would not Mr. Webster, as a man of honour, if he had the feelings of a man at all, demand the particulars ? Would he in his own mind, or perhaps with his own mouth, condemn the lady on the ground of what the informer could tell him — only he was afraid ! * * * * What does he mean by saying he could tell when he does not tell, APPENDIX. 583 but shrinks, from whatever cause, to verify calumnies, which must remain calumnies, until he names person, time, and place % This is dastardliness, in the fullest sense of the phrase ; and such as it is we are constrained to lay it at the door of ‘ the Protestant Chancellor of Cork!’ * * ^ * The most daring and outrageous falsehood, perhaps, in this ‘ argumentative letter’ is Mr. Webster’s statement — • that he ‘ could give,’ but dares not, ‘ instances where the ordained agents of the Irish Church Missions paid Protestants to pretend they were Poman Catholics at the controversial meetings, and at these meetings to call these very ordained agents the hardest names.’ This foulest of all slanders defies comment. No words could convey, in at all adequate language, what this infamous aspersion deserves. Its baseness can only be equalled by its utter absurdity. ^ ^ * By all means, let Mr. Eade confess that bread and clothes are given to children and adults for the very and express purpose of bringing them to the Irish Church Mission Schools. Let the society glory in it, notwithstanding the squeamish prudery of the Protestant Chan- cellor. * * ^ * "We advise Mr. Eade, however, to plead guilty, and we advise the society to do the same, through its representatives, as we think there is rather a high and illustrious precedent for the sin of bribery and corruption, in this peculiar form of administering temporal relief along with spiritual instruction and enlightenment.” Then the Carlow Sentinel writes (March 12): — “Whether Mr. Webster is merely a tool in the hands of those who plot against the Establishment (with a view, perhaps, to reversion rather than sub- version) or whether he be himself a worker for its ruin, it is not our present purpose to inquire. We have ourselves a decided opinion upon the merits of the general question, which opinion is, that so far as the Society for Irish Church Missions is concerned, Mr. Webster occupies towards it the position of a libeller, and we charitably trust a sincere one.” The Achill Missionary Herald, March 15th, writes : — “ In our last number we described Mr. Webster’s attack upon the Society for Irish Church Missions as ^ silly and spiteful.’ He puts forth charges affecting the characters of clergymen and others, and when called upon to name the individuals referred to, he is unable to do so, covering his retreat from this reasonable demand by the pre- tence that he is ‘ unwilling to allow the controversy to degenerate from a great war of principles into a series of petty squabbles about the folly or dishonesty of this individual or that.’ He arraigned the Society for Irish Church Missions through the medium of his pulpit at the bar of public opinion ; and when called upon to substantiate his charges he is obliged, so far as facts are concerned, to submit to the humiliation of a non-suit. * * * Unable to sustain his indict- ment of the Society for Irish Church Missions by facts. * * *’> These are only a few out of many specimens that might be quoted of the effect produced by the Irish Church Missions by publishing their first pamphlet. I cannot believe that the editors of these journals ever read my letter to the Constitution, dated February 15th, in 584 APPENDIX. which, after many efforts to screen the scandal, I was compelled in self-defence to adduce some of my proofs of all that I had advanced. That letter, of course, did not appear in the pamphlet published by the Irish Church Missions ; and I cannot say too much of the dis- advantage to which I was put by the society by such an omission. As I said before, the whole correspondence is now published, and charity makes me believe that neither Canon M'Neile nor the various editors who have done me such injustice ever had the opportunity of reading the whole. Canon M‘Neile quotes a passage from Archbishop Whately which appears in Mr. Dallas’s paper on Conscience. To me it is simply amusing to hear such a writer quoted, as if anything he ever said or wrote could be supposed by any honest man to advocate the practice of bribery. As Canon M‘Neile refers to the “Lessons on Morals,” perhaps he never had his attention directed to what the Archbishop says in the eighth chapter of that very book, section 1 : — “ Conscience I^ever to be Opposed. — You have seen that as man’s conscience is not infallible, you must not at once conclude that you are right when you are acting according to the dictates of conscience. And yet you may be sure that you are wrong if you are acting against it. For if you do what you believe to be wrong, even though you may be mistaken in thinking so, and it may be in reality right, still you yourself will be wrong. And this is what the Apostle Paul means when he says, ‘ Happy is he that condemneth not him- self in that thing which he alloweth’ — (Rom. xiv. 22 ); and ‘ Whatsoever is not of faith is sin’ — that is, whatsoever is not done with a full conviction (faith) that it is allowable, is to him sinful, and he condemns himself in doing it. And on this principle he alludes (in 1 Cor. X.) to the case of some of the ‘ weaker brethren’ [the less intelligent] among the early Christian converts who thought that the flesh of an animal which had been offered in sacrifice to idols was unclean, and not to be eaten. He does not at all himself partake of the scruple, considering it a matter of no consequence, in a religious or moral point of view, what kind of food a man eats. But he teaches that those who do feel such a scruple would be wrong in eating that flesh, and ‘ their conscience being weak is defiled, for to him who thinketh it unclean to him it is unclean.’ And he teaches also that it would be wrong for any one to induce others to do what they think sinful, though it be something that is not sinful to one who does not think it so. In such a case as this both parties are acting rightly if the one eats what he is convinced is allowable, and the other abstains from what he thinks is not allowable, provided always that neither of them uncharitably censures or derides his neighbour. ‘ Let not him that eateth,’ says Paul, ‘ despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth and ‘let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.’ — Rom. xiv. 5.” Perhaps, too. Canon M‘]Sreile is not familar with a passage from APPENDIX. 585 Arnold’s “ Christian Life,” which the late Archbishop used to say- ought to be written in letters of gold, and which is quoted in many of his Grace’s works. In his Grace’s charge, delivered Sept. 22nd, 1848, we have the following words: — “Truth should indeed be earnestly recommended, but recommended as truth ; and error cen- sured, because it is error, without any appeal to men’s temporal wants, and sufferings, and interests, or to any other such motives as ought not in such a question to be allowed to operate. In the words of my lamented friend, Dr. Arnold — words as true, and as important to be laid to heart, as ever were penned by uninspired man — ‘ The highest truth, if professed by one who believes it not in his heart, is, to him, a lie, and he sins greatly by professing it. Let us try as much as we will to convince our neighbours, but let us beware of influencing their conduct, when we fail in influencing their convic- tions. He who bribes or frightens his neighbour into doing an act which no good man would do for reward, or from fear, is tempting his neighbour to sin ; he is assisting to lower and to harden his con- science — to make him act for the favour or from the fear of man, instead of for the favour or from the fear of God ; and if this be a sin in him, it is a double sin in us to tempt him to it.’ ” For the purpose of saving the name of Archbishop Whately from the charge of approving of anything that could be called bribery, let me refer Canon M‘!N'eile to another passage in one of his Grace’s works, “ Lessons on Mind,” chap, xxiv., p. 5 : — “ Conscience is the rightful supreme ruler over the whole man — over all actions, words, and thoughts. That is, nothing can be right which conscience condemns, even though the condemnation be a mistaken one. And this is the meaning of the Apostle, who says, ‘ Let every man be fully per- suaded in his own mind; * * * whatever is not of faith (i.e., whatever is not done in a full belief of its being allowable) is sin.’” What Mr. Dallas and Canon M‘Neile can mean by quoting Arch- bishop Whately I cannot tell. I might copy hundreds of passages from his Grace’s works to prove that his Grace always taught pre- cisely what appears in the quotations I have now made ; and I should most earnestly recommend everybody to read, especially, the book noticed by Mr. Dallas and Canon M‘Neile — the “ Lessons on Morals.” Canon M‘]Sreile says : — “I would take the liberty of saying to the Rev. George Webster that we have no regard whatever to that argument of his, for we know that conscience is a blind guide unless it is enlightened by the word of God;” and therefore, of course, that we may be justified in acting against our conscience. Indeed, Mr. Dallas says expressly that St. Peter acted “against his conscience” when, in obedience to the Heavenly Vision and the direct command of God, he went to visit Cornelius ! This is Mr. Dallas’s opinion, although Holy Scripture tells us expressly that St. Peter was to go “ nothing doubting” — “ fully persuaded in his own mind,” as St. Paul would express it. I have to ask your pardon for this very long letter, and again to say that I am quite willing to abide by the judg- 586 APPENDIX. merit of any honest man rvLo will be content to read “ the only complete copy of the whole correspondence, &c.,” edited by Four Eectors and published by Messrs Hodges and Smith. — I am, sir, your obedient servant, George Webster, Chancellor of Cork and Kector of St. Nicholas. Cork, March 26th, 1864. The statements referred to by Mr. Webster we omitted in the report in the Constitution because some of them were untrue, and because we did not wish to give occasion for a reply. We have called them untrue, and being untrue, how came they to be made ? How came Dr. M‘Neile to be ignorant that the correspondence did not cease on the 23rd of February, and that what Mr. Webster said he’d do he did h How came Dr. M‘Neile to be ignorant of this ? How came he to know anything about the correspondence if he didn’t know all ; and how came Mr. Fade to sit by approvingly, instead of rising and saying — “ The Kev. Chairman is mistaken; Mr. Webster j^erformed what he promised, offered me even the names of the delinquents if I chose to publish them, but I, instead of accepting the offer, thought it prudent to decline” — how came Mr. Fade to do this h Does he imagine that the society is served by his silence, and if he does, does he imagine that silence is a service which, under such circumstances, a society should accept? We put these questions, not that we agree with Mr. Webster (for we should have no hesitation in giving a breakfast to little ones, Eomanist or Protestant, Greek, Mahommedan, or Jew, who could get no breakfast elsewhere in time to attend a school), but that we disagree with Mr. Fade — that we detest deception and dishonesty, and look on suppression and perver- sion as dishonouring to the Christian cause. The course from the first would be to say — “ We accept your testimony, Mr. Webster. We are constrained to believe that there have been improprieties — iniquitous improprieties on the part of the agent or agents you under- take to name ; but eight years have passed, and the transgressors are either no longer in the country or not under our control. If you know of anything similar at present we will thank you to tell us of it, and inquiry shall be at once made ; but as to the food, we differ from you there. You think it bribery — we do not ; and, confident in the integrity of our intentions, we proclaim publicly that it is our purpose to continue it ; and will leave the public to decide between us.” Such a declaration would have saved all controversy, and spared us the necessity of employing our columns in the correction of mis- statements for which there is no excuse. Dr. M‘Neile we do not blame, for had he seen the correspondence he would not have spoken as he did ; but we blame those who, if they informed him at all, should have informed him rightly, or who made themselves parties to the misstatements by suffering the meeting to disperse under the APPENDIX. 587 false impressions they produced. There are two guineas announced “ as a response to Mr. Eade’s speech.” It would be far more credit- able to that gentleman if there had been a few words from him to put the facts properly before the responder. If there were such words, and that they were unfortunately omitted in the report, we shall be most happy, at Mr. Eade’s request, to supply them. If there were not such words, it would be better either to hold no meetings, or to refrain from statements which require contradiction. As things stand, the friends of the Mission — we mean those (and they are many) who in sincerity believe it a good work — have great reason to be dissatisfied ; they would renounce it for ever rather than be held responsible for statements of which Mr. Eade should not have been an assentient auditor. We write warmly, for the better a cause is, the more every honest man should be set against reprehensible means for advancing it, and its supporters have a right to be indignant when statements are made of it before ignorant audiences — audiences ignorant of the facts which are unwarrantably (though by the in- dividual undesignedly) distorted .— of Constitution, '588 APPENDIX. APPENDIX III. The Passage from Archbishop Whately’s Charge referred to in Page 531. When at page 531, the Author gave the substance of a passage from one of Archbishop Whately’s Charges, he was unable to quote the words in full, although most desirous to do so, inasmuch as the copy of the charge which he at one time possessed, had been lost. That being so, he could only reproduce a short note giving the sub- stance of it, which he made shortly after the Charge was published. He is now happy to say, that within the last few days he has been fortunate enough to obtain the Charge in which the passage occurs. It is as follows : — “ The conversions to Romanism, of late years, especially in Eng- land, though a very insignificant number, compared with the whole mass of the population, yet have far exceeded anything that can be remembered by the present generation, or by the preceding. And the number of recent conversions to our Church, in this island, is very much greater still. It has often been remarked that tliese latter have taken place chiefly among the humbler classes of society ; and that, on the other hand, the secessions to the Church of Rome have been chiefly among the Gentry and the Clergy. And a stranger might be disposed, at the first glance, to consider this as forming a presumption, that education and intelligence are favourable to the cause of Rome, and that comparative ignorance and scanty intel- lectual culture, predispose men to the reception of Protestant views. But, on closer inquiry, he would find that those of the educated classes who have embraced Romanism, have done so, for the most part, by their own admission, not from investigation of evidence, and on grounds of rational conviction, but by deliberately giving them- selves up to the guidance of feeling and imagination. Argumentative powers, indeed, and learning, several of them possess in a high degree ; but these advantages they think themselves bound to lay aside and to disparage, in all that pertains to religion. Though well qualified, by nature and education, to weigh evidence, either for the truth of Christianity generally, or of any particular doctrines, and place the virtue of faith in a ready reception of what a man is told, and which is congenial to his own sentiments, without any more * reason for the hope that is in him’ than the Pagans have for their belief. They are led, and consider it right to be led, by a craving for the beautiful, the touching, the splendid, and the picturesque. They APPENDIX. 589 deliberately prefer what will afford the most scope for the exercise of their feelings, and the gratification of fancy, and they have joined the Church which best supplies what they desire. “I am not, you will observe, casting any imputation on the sincerity of their belief of what they profess. The question is not as to the reality of their conviction, but as to the grounds of it. Of course when a man has once resolved, through the operation of any kind of bias, to adopt a certain system, he will be likely, afterwards, to seek for plausible arguments to justify, both to others and to himself, the course taken ; and may, perhaps, end by believing, and making others believe, that these arguments were the cause of his decision, when, in truth, they are rather the effect of it. And though it is not allowable to impute to anyone, without proof, such a bias, even when there may be reason to suspect it, — on the other hand, when any- one acknowledges himself to have been thus biassed, there can be nothing rash or unfair in attributing his decision to that cause. “All the deference, therefore, which might be due to any one’s learning or intelligence, must evidently be cast aside, when he is confessedly making his religious faith a matter of mere feeling and taste. All his superiority of reasoning-powers goes for nothing, in a case where he has repudiated the use of reason ; even as the most clear- sighted and the most dim-sighted are on a level, when both are led blindfold. “ The humblest peasants, therefore, who have set themselves seriously to inquire, not for what is the most acceptable to their taste, but for what is true, and who have carefully examined and reflected, according to the best of the powers God has given them, — these are evidently bearing far stronger testimony in favour of the faith they adopt, than even ten times as many of the most intelligent and best informed of the human race, who shall have resolved to abstain from all rational inquiry, and all careful reflection, and to give themselves up to the guidance of their feelings .” — Charge delivered at the Triennial Visitation of the Province of Dublin in the year 1853, by Richard Whately, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin, p. 6, et seg. The Author does not think it necessary to make any observations on the elaborate sophistry of the above passage ; but he may be allowed to say, that, in the short summary of it in page 531, its gist is correctly given. INDEX Albrizzi’s letter, 288. Achill Island, Proselytism, 524 et seq. — Money expended there, 527. Adventurers, 402-3-4, et seq., 408-9. Allen, Archbishop of Dublin, 2. Anne, Queen, 505, (see note), 506 — Her Penal Laws, 507, et seq — Clauses of the Act of 1703-4, et seq . — Act of Explanation, 512. Antrim, Earl of, 212, 274. Aphorismical Discovery, 129. Assembly General, 273. Athlone, 486, et seq. Aughrim, 483. Bacon, Lord E. on Ireland (note) 31, 58 (note). Bagenal, Marshal, 18 (note). Baltrasna, Castle of, 418. Barbadoes, Irish women sent to, 407- Barnewall, Sir P., 39. Barnewall, Mr. P., racked, 154. Benburb, Battle of, 243. Bibles and Testaments, number of, distributed in Ireland, 523. Bible readers, their aggressiveness in Kingstown, 549. Bird’s Nest, the lessons children are taught there, 549. Billings’ reasons for a Cessation, 195. Bishops join the Confederation, 170. Black Tom, 82. Boulter, Primate, 518 (see note.) Bourke, Lieut.- General, 174. Boyle, Clerk of the Council, 2 (after- wards Earl of Cork). Boyle, Wentworth’s proceedings there, 87. Boyne, Battle of, 479. Brandenburghers nearly annihilated, 483. Brereton, Sir W., 201. Bribery, 443. Broghill, Lord, 351. Brounker, Sir H., 35, 39, et seq. Buckingham, 74. Butlers, the two, 1— Brown, George, 1, et seq., 91. Capel, Lord, speech on opening Par- liament, 19th August, 1695, 495 — Catholics excluded from it by an English statute, ib. — Laws against Catholics enacted in it, ib. et seq. Carlyle, Thos.,on the sack of Drogheda, 335. Carte, Ormonde’s biographer, 286. Cashel, taking of, 157. Castleconnell, 375-6. Castlehaven, 140, 211-12-13, 341-8, 378. Catholic Churches seized, 80. Catholics, 219, 221, 428-9— Schemes for excluding them from Parliament, 437, 438. Cavaliers, 425. Cessation, 192, et seq. — Concluded, 198, 200 — Violated, 206, 209. Charles I., 74, 93, 127, 171, 177, seq, 204, 213-16-17, 232-3, 256, 265.— His death 292. Charlemont, Lord (Sir Toby Caulfield) shot, 126. Charlemont, Fort of, 172. Charter Schools, 521. Chichester, Sir A., 38, 40, 45 — Grant of Inishowen, 46 (note), 68, 97, 417- 418. Clanrickard, Lord, 159, 160, 175, 222, 256-9, 260, 275, 283, 381-2, 399. Clonmel, 353-4, et seq. Clonmacnoise, Council of, 370. Cole, Sir W., 132. Commissioners (King’s) 178. Commission to J ones, Dean of Kilmore, and others, 123, et seq. Confederation, Demands of, 213 — New Council, 252, 269, 381. Confiscations under James L, 73. Congregation of Kilkenny, Acts of, 162-3. Connaught, 158 — Connaught given to the Irish, the reason, 410. Connolly, Owen, 209. Coote, Sir C., 141, 144, 363-4, 382-3. Cork, Earl of, 70. Cork, Protestant Bishop of, 33. 2 p 592 INDEX. Covenants, Scotch, 205, et seq.^ 210. Covenant, taking of it, 106. Covenanters, 105 (note.) Cox, Mischief done by him, 335. Crofty, interview at hill of, 143, et seq. Cromwell, Oliver, his life and char- acter, 306, 325, et seq. — Before Drogheda, 327-8 — Quarter or no quarter, 329, 331, et seq. — God did it all, 333, 338-9, 342-3, et seq.— Siege of Clonmel, 352-4-8, 360, 398, et seq. — His death, 424. Cromwell, Richard, 424. Cromwell, Henry, 424. Cromwellians, their conduct at the Restoration, 427, 432. Dallas, Mr., 528. Davys, Sir John, 34. Delegates, 78. Desmond, Earl of, 8, et seq. — 23 (note). Desmond, young Earl of, 19, 21. Deveny, Bishop, 67. Digby, Lord, 202, 229, 230-5-6, 256- 7-8-9, 260-7. Digby, Sir Kenelm, 237. Dillon, Chief Justice, 27. Dillon, Lord, left by Ormonde at Fin- glas, Dublin, 253-4. Dingle proselytisers, 531, et seq. Discoverers, 513-514. Double Ordinance, 154. Dowdall, Archbishop, 5. Dowdall, Edward, 143. Drogheda, 327, et seq . — Indiscriminate slaughter, 333. Drury, Sir W., 19. Dublin Castle, projected attack on. 111. Diilcck 479 Dungan’s Hill, Battle of, 253, 269. Eade, Rev. Mr., 546. Ecclesiastical dues exacted by Protes- tant clergy, 76 (note). Edge hill, battle of, 404. Edward VI., 91. Egan, Father, 245 — Disposition of O’Neill’s Forces, 245 — Result, 247-8. Egan, Right Rev. Dr., Bishop of Ross, 351 (see note). Elizabeth — Her Parliament of 1589-60, 6, et seq., 92. Embassy to France, 274. English Invasion, 101. Excommunication removed, 288 — Had been drawn up at Jamestown, 368. Fairfax, Sir Thomas — He declines the chief command of the army against Scotland, 361-2. Faith and Fatherland, 102. Falkland, Lord Deputy, 74, 78, 79. Famine of 1847, 553. Ferboe, Pass of, 379. Fennell, 212, 353-4, 386-8, et seq. Finglass, 479. Fines for not attending Protestant service, 36. Fitton, 13. Flag of Irish Catholic Faith, 2. Fleming, Most Rev. Dr., 217. Fleming, Baron of Slane, 27. Forbes, Dr. — His memorandums made in Ireland, 533, et seq,, 550. Fosterage, 112 (note). Franciscan Fathers, 340. Franciscan Church, Cook Street, High Mass there, stopped by Archbishop Loftus and a file of soldiers, 80. French, Right Rev. Dr., 340. Friars, 81 (note). Froude, Mr., on Hugh O’Neill — His adroitness, 15. Galway — Wentworth’s proceedings there, 89. Galway surrenders, 401, 490. Generals, appointment of, 168-9. George I. — Penal laws passed in his reign, 516. George II — Elective Franchise taken from the Catholics in his reign, 517. Ginkle, De, arrives at Limerick, 490. Glamorgan, 224-6-7 — (Private treaty) 228, 230-1-2-4-6. Golden Fort, slaughter there, 25. Goodwin and Reynolds, 177. Gookin, N — His opinion of the trans- planting, 410. Gormanston, Lord, 39 — His cabinet captured, 102, 144, et seq. Grants not enrolled, 56. “ Graces,” The, 75, et seq., 135, 175. Grey, Lord Deputy, 26. Halifax, 475. Hamilton, Colonel, 474. Hanna, Rev. Dr., of Belfast, 551 ,et seq. Henry, VIII., 91. Hewson, Colonel,goes south — His pro- clamation, 348. Herrings for the army, 193. Hogan, Galloping, 482 (note). Howard’s Popery Cases, 515. Howard the philanthropist, 522. Inchiquin, 99, 173 (note), 174, 200, 271-2-8-9, 280, 296, 337, 343, 351. Innocent papists — Who were they? 439 — See note, 440, 444. INDEX. 593 Innocent X., Pope, sent the Mission- aries of St. Vincent de Paul to Ire- land — Reception of Rinuccini, 287. Ireland, Protestant misrepresentation about its condition before 1641, 96. Ireton — His failure at Duncannon fort, 341 — Before Limerick, 375-6, et seq. — 384, 385, 386 (note) — Persons ex- cepted from treaty by Ireton, 390, 392, 402. I.P. not I.R. — The dreadful letters I.P. = Irish Papist. — I.R. = Irish rebel, 423. Irish Church Missions to the Roman Catholics, 528 — In Belfast, 550 — A sham Catholic champion there, ih., 551 — The Church Missions made no really instructed Protestant con- verts, 553 — Annual subscriptions, 554. “ Irish enemy,” 101. Irish Confederation, 175, et seq. Irish Guides at Baggotrath unjustly blamed (one being a priest), 299. Irish, Extermination of, 402-3— Toler- ation of, 409 — Protected with a vengeance, 421. Israelites in Exile, 108. Island Magee, 115, et seq. — 124, et seq. (see note). Jamestown, Congregation at, 367-8. James II., 451 — Manifests his Catho- licity, ih . — His anomalous position, 452— Protestant ideas of Catholic religion, ih. — Episcopalians, 453. — Proclamation, 454 — C. J. Fox’s opinion, 454 [see note), 456 — James flies from England, 457 — Archbishop King’s State of the Protestants, ih., et seq. — His love of liberty, 458 — Dissenters get relief by taking oaths against Popery,459 — Bishops Burnet and Mant, 460 — King James leaves Ireland, 467-9— Lands in Kinsale, 474. James I., 33, 41, 51, 54, 56, 57, 73, 93, 97, 98. J ones. Sir R., governor of Connaught, 159. Jones, Colonel Michael, 294, S46. Jones, Archbishop of Dublin, 99. Judgment, The, of divers Archbishops, 74. Julianstown Bridge, 141. Justices, Lords, 113, 133, 134. Kane, Rev. Dr., of Belfast, 551 et seq. Kells, Synod of, 161. Kildare, Earls of, 60 et seq,, 71. Kildare, G., 16th Earl of, 142 (note). Kildare, 4th Earl of, his speech to the Lord Deputy, 67. Kildare, Countess of, 254 (note). Kilkenny, march on, 248 — Surrendered to Cromwell, 349 — Profanation of the churches, 349-50. Kilkea, 254. Kilmallock, 21. King, Archbishop of Dublin, 457, et seq. Knox, Andrew, Bishop of Raphoe, 67, 98 (note). Lambert, 325. Lawrence, Colonel, 410. Lsland, Dr., 102, 123, 209. Leslie’s Answer to King, 466 — His estimate of James’s character, 463, 468. Leslie, General, his correspondence with Owen Roe, 172. Levellers, 325. Limerick City of, 379 — Divisions in Limerick, 386 — Battle at the breach, 483— Surrenders, 491 — Treaty of, ib. et seq., 498-9. Lindsay, Barnet, 121. Lisle, Lord, 180, 185 (note). Liturgy (Protestant) forbidden by Puritans to be used, 267. Livery to sue. Catholics deprived of it, 8. Loftus, Adam, Chancellor and Protes- tant Archbishop of Dublin, 80. Lords Justices, 80, 113, 123, 127, 131, 136, et seq., 139, 146, 148, 152, et seq., 160, 177, 197. Lorraine, Duke of, 399. Louis XIV. crosses the Rhine with an army, and overrun Holland, 503, et seq. — {see note). Ludlow, General, 375-7, 380. Magrath, Father Myler, 361. Maguire, Rory, (note) 117. Magrath, Miler, 321. Mandates, Royal, 37. Marlborough invests Cork, 484. Martyrs, The forty, 553, Martyrs, 24. Mary, her rule in Ireland, 5, 91. Mass, The, 417. M‘Mahon, HeW, Bishop of Clogher, 274, 363. M‘Mahon,*Colonel, 111, 153. M‘Phelim, Hugh, 184. Monk, 294 — His soldiers desert him, 295 — His career— His character — He restores Charles II., 425-6. 594 INDEX. Monroe, General Robert, 129, 210, 211, 243, 251. Montrose — His defeat — Ignored by Charles II. after it, 365. Moore, Lady Alice, 221. Moore, young Lord, 222. Moore, Father and companions, 26. Mountjoy, 14. Mountgarret, 157, 168. Mulcahy, F. Nicholas, P.P., of Ard- finan, 361. Munster, 155, 158. Muskerry, Lord, 272-5. Nantwick, battle of, 201. Napoleon I., a principle of his, 441 New Testaments sent to the Author. 523. Nobles or Noble, to bring to ninepence, 359 (note). Nominees, favours to, 435. Number killed in the Rising of 1641, 117, et seq. Oath of Association, 165-6-7. Oblivion and Indemnity, Act of, 430 — for Ireland — for Scotland, ih. O’Brien, Murrough, 270. O’Byrnes, their case, 55. O’Callaghan, Friar, 287. O’Connolly, or O’Connolly, Owen, 112, 113 {and note), 209. O’Connor, Dr. Chas., 31. O’Daly, 69. O’Devany, Archbishop, 418. O’Donnell, 41. O’Farrell, Lieut.-General, 345. Officers, the forty -nine, 445. O’Haly, Right Rev. Dr., 24. O’Hurley, Most Rev. D., 26, et seq. O’Moore, Roger, 108, 109 — Dinner party, 109, et seq., 145. O’Neill, Hugh, jun., called Duff, 354, et seq., (see note also), 384-5. O’Neill, Henry, Owen Roe’s son, 363, 392-3. O’Neilb McTully, 249. O’Neill, Sir Phelim, 126 — See note on death of Lord Charlemont, ih., 127, 129, 130. O’Neill, Hugh, 15, etseq., 23, 41. O’Neilan, Father D., 26. O’Neill, Owen Roe, his landing, 130, 161, 172, 198, 243, 250-7-8, 261, 272, 281-2-3— Deserted by half of his army, 292, 293, et seq., 302, et seq . — His death, 304, 362^ — His character as a General, 406 (note). O’Reilly, Father James, 360. O’Reilly, Most Rev. Hugh, Primate, 161. Ormonde, Duke of, 9, 71, 72, 86, 148, et seq., 187, et seq., 202, et seq., 218, 220, 222-3-4-5, 236, 238— Peace of the General Assembly with him called Peace of 1646, 242, 251-5-6, 258-9, 261-2 — His humiliation, ih., 264-5 — King’s letter to him, 266-7-8, 270, 1-2, 274-5-7, 285-6-9, 290, et seq.— At Ballysonan, 302, 325, 337, 342, 345-6-7, 369, 370, 372, et se^.—Goes to France, 381, 386-7, 444-5. Ormonde, J ames, second and last Duke of, 507 (note). O’Rourke, Brian-na-murtha, 29. O’Rourke, Rev. C., 24. Ossory, Earl of, 1. Ossory, P. Bishop of, 34. O’Sullivan, 66, 69. Pale, English, 101, 136, 142, 150, et seq., 158. Parliament, Puritan, 208 — Commis- sioners’ articles with Ormonde, 263. Parliament of 1613, 44, et seq . — of 1634, 83, etseq.— oi 1661, 436. Parsons, 55. Peace, the Roman, 237. Peace of 1646, 238-9, 240-1. Peisley, Capt., his barbarities, 156. Penal Laws enforced at the Restora- tion, 431, 497 (see note) — School- masters, 513 — Bishops and Priests, 513. Perrot, Lord Deputy, 29. Petty, Sir W. — His witnesses, 444. Plans for Rising of 1641, 110, et seq. Plantation of Munster, 11. Plantation of Ireland, new, 408. Plunket, Most Rev. Oliver, Primate of Ireland, 446, et seq . — Chief accus- ers were unworthy priests, M ‘Moyer, Duffy, Murphy, 447, Trial transferred to London, 449— Tried and condemned before his witnesses had arrived, ib . — His defence, ib . — His reliques brought to Germany, ib . — See note for Protestant testi- mony in favour of Dr. Plunket. Plunket, Sir R., 109. Portadown, Slaughter and Appari- tions there, 122, (note). Precincts, Division into, 422. Prendergast, J. P. — His letter to the Author, (note) 429. Presbyterians of Ulster, 422. Preston, 184 — Loses his army, 251, 256-8, 261,275, 281, 336. INDEX. 595 Priest Hunters, 417 — Various plans for discovering priests, ih. Priests, Proclamation against them, 54, 99 — Declared guilty of high treason, 418. Priests always outlaws, 41 6 — Spenser’s opinion of them, ih. Proselytizing Education, 518, et seq. Protectorates, 273. Protestant Ascendancy, 45, 446. Protestant Reform.ation, 94. Protestants, Demands of, 215-16. Protestant Strangers invited to settle in Ireland, 493. Purcell — His unaccountable delay in reaching Baggotrath, 299. Puritans — Their hatred of the Mass, 104 — Length of their sermons, their inspirations, &c., 105, (note). 106, (note) — Blasphemy against God, 268. Queen Henrietta, 274-5 — Her letter to her husband, 479. Rack, The, 152. Rathmines, 297 — Battle of, 298, et seq. — English Officer’s account, 301. Read, J., 153. Rebellion, Alarms of, 438. Recusants (Popish), 9. Remonstrance from Trim, 185. Remonstrance of the English Army, 291. Rinuccini (Nuncio), 228, 237, 252, 257-8, 269, 272-3-7-8-9 — Excom- munication, 280-2-3-4-5 — His char- acter, 286-7 — Removal of the Excommunication, 288. Romans, Ancient, 101. Ross, Battle of, 183. Sarsfield — His refusal to carry a letter from William to Tyrconnell — His success at Ballyneety, 481-2 — He was ignorant of St. Ruth’s plans, 489. Saxey, J ustice, 34. Scarampi — He arrives in Ireland, 195 Scariff Hollis, Battle of, 363. Schomberg, 476-7. Scots cross the Tyne and levy heavy contributions in England, 107, 211 . Settlement, Act of : its disingenuous- ness, 432, et seq. Shaftesbury, a plotter against Dr. Plunket, 448. Simony of Ussher and other Bishops, 77. Sinnot, Col. David, 337-8. Slaughter at Swords and Clontarf, &c., 148. Smerwick, slaughter there, 25. Smith, Erasmus, his Schools, 520. St. Leger, President of Munster, 155. St. John (Viscount Grandison), 52, 99. St. Ruth, General, 489. St. Vincent de Paul — His missionaries in Limerick, 394 — {See note also), et seq. Stafford, his treason, 338. Standard Newspaper, 225, note. Staples, Bishop of Meath, 3, 91. Star Chamber, The, 37, (note) 38. Stewart, Sir W. and Sir R., 130. Stuarts — Their Protestantism, 471. Supreme Council, Seal of, 168, 178. Supreme Council (Ormondites), 283. Supremacy, Oath of, 41, (note). S wanly. Captain, 224. Swordsmen, Departure of, for Spain, 406. Sydney— His tour— His butcheries, 12 . Taaffe at Knocknanuss, 269 (note), 275—280—336—399—400. Talbot, Duke of Tirconnell, 460, et seq . — Lady Morgan on Tyrconnell, 461. Tanderagee, 250. Tara, Palesman’s answer from, 144. Thurles, Lord, 72, See Ormonde, Duke of. Tichborne, Sir H., 137 — 197. Toleration, Complaints of, 97, ^t seq. Tories, 419 (see note), 420. Townshend, Col., 343-4. Trevor, Col. Mark, 426. Trim, Remonstrance of Grievance there, 82 (note), 103—180—185. Trinity College, its lands in Ulster, 43. Trust, Commissioners of, 371. Tuam, Archbishop of, 229. Tyrone and Tyrconnell, 36 (See O’Neill, H.) Ulster, Plantation of, 41, et seq., 101. Ussher, Archbishop, 53, 74, 80. Venables, Col., 363. Vittoria Siri, 230 (note), 233. Waller, Sir Hardress, 325. Wallop, Sir H., 29. 596 INDEX. Walsh, Archbishop, 290-1 — note. War of 1641, 96-108. Wards, Court of, 57, et seq. Warner, Rev. F. (historian), 123. Waterford, 344, 357. Webster, Rev. Geo., Chancellor of Cork — His correspondence with Messrs. Dallas and Fade of the Irish Church Missions, 535, et seq. — In- vestigation by Dr. Whately, 545 — Mr. Eade denies that there was an investigation, 546 — Rev. Mr. Web- ster’s eight charges, 546-7-8-9. Wentworth, 43, 82, et seq., 100. Wexford, Cromwell appears before it, 336. Whately, Most Rev. Dr., 529, et seq . — His dependence on the reading of the Bible to convert the Irish, ex- amined, 530 — His comparison be- tween the conversion of an Oxford Divine and an Irish peasant, 531 — See also Appendix HI. Willoughby, Capt., 175. Wood, Thomas, at Drogheda — His dreadful narrative, 332. Woollen Manufacture destroyed, 500. SUBSCRIBERS’ NAMES. His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Bishop’s House, Westminster. The Most Noble the Marquis of Ripon, Carlton Gardens, London. His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Dublin, 4 Rutland Square, Dublin, 10 copies. The Right Rev. Dr. O’Reilly, Bishop of Liverpool, St. Edmund’s College, Liverpool. The Rt. Rev. Robert Cornthwaite, Bishop of Leeds, Bishop’s House, Leeds. The Right Rev. Edward G. Bagshaw, Bishop of Nottingham, St. Barnabas’s Cathedral, Nottingham. Right Rev. N. Donnelly, Bishop of Canea, RathgarRoad, Dublin. Browne, Very Rev. Robert, D.D., President, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, 4 copies. Behan, Rev. John, Clondalkin. Byrne, Very Rev. P., C.M., St. Patrick’s Training College, Drum- condra. Byrne, Rev. Thomas, C.C., Clondalkin. Burke, Rev. Sylvester, C.C., Donnybrook. Burke, Rev. Michael V., River House, Wrexham, Norwich. Cuffe, Very Rev. Michael, Endymion Road, Brixton Rise, London, 2 copies. Clery, Rev. Edward J., Chichester. Cleary, Rev. W., C.C., St. Mary’s, Maynooth, 2 copies. Colgan, J., Esq., Messrs Jackson and Co., Hereford. Calfrey, Rev. Joseph, Anna Villa, Artane, Co. Dublin. Cullen, Michael, Esq., Greenfield, Maynooth. Clooney, Very Rev. S., P.P., Kilrush, Ferns, Co. Wexford. Duggan, Rev. W., C.C., Leixlip. Donovan, Very Rev. John, P.P., Celbridge, 5 copies. 598 subscribers’ names. Donnellan, Very Eev. Dean, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth. Dillon, Very Eev. Canon W., P.P., V.F., Wicklow. Downing, Eev. D. M., C.C., Cathedral, Marlborough Street, 5 copies. DufFe, Very Eev. Patrick J., P.P., Donabate. Fortune, Very Eev. W., President, All Hallows’ College, Dublin. French College, Blackrock, Dublin. Flanagan, Very Eev. Canon J., P.P., St. Margaret’s, Co. Dublin, 2 copies. Flicker, Very Eev. Canon, M.A., P.P., Eathmines. Fennelly, Eev. John, C.C., Kingstown. Gargan, Very Eev. Denis, D.D., Vice-President, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, 2 copies. Geoghegan, Very Eev. Canon T., V.G., P.P., Kilcock. Gilmartin, Eev. Thomas, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth. Grew, Very Eev. Patrick, S.M., President, St. Mary’s College, Dun- dalk. Golden, Eev. John, St. George’s Cathedral, Westminster Bridge-road, London. Horan, Very Eev. Edward, P.P., Grangegeith, Slane. Hunt, Very Eev. James J., P.P., Saggard. Irwin, Very Eev. Archdeacon, Castleisland, Co. Kerry. Ivers, Eev. M., C.C., 83 Aughrim Street, Dublin. Kennedy, Eight Eev. Mgr., V.G., &c., James’s Street, Dublin. Kelly, Thomas A., Esq., 89 Lower Gardiner Street, Dublin. Keogh, Very Eev. Canon, P.P., V.F., Balbriggan. Lee, Eight Eev. Mgr. Dean, V.G., &c., Bray, 2 copies. Larkin, Mr. Christopher, Lowtherstown, Balbriggan. Leahy, Very Eev. Canon J., P.P., Sandyford. McNamara, Very Eev. T., C.M., President, Irish College, Paris. M‘Manus, Very Eev. Canon M., P.P., St. Catherine’s, Meath Street, Dublin. Martin, Eev. J. A., C.C., 48 Westland Eow, Dublin, 2 copies. M-'Carthy, Very Eev. F., P.P., Ballyheigue. M‘Mahon, Very Eev. M., P.P., Boherbee, Co. Cork. ‘ Molony, Very Eev. M., P.P., Barindarrig, Wicklow. SUBSCRIBEES’ l^AMES. 599 M‘Carte, James, Esq., 20 Sampson Street, Everton, Liverpool. Maguire, Eev. Edward H., St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth. Murphy, Very Eev. Peter, Tomgraney, Co. Clare. M ‘Donald, Eev. Walter, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth. Maher, Eev. C., C.C., Cathedral, Marlborough Street. Mannion, Eev. P., C.C., The Presbytery, Elphin. O’Eorke, Very Eev. Archdeacon, P.P., &c., Collooney. O’Hanlon, Very Eev. Canon J., Star of the Sea, Dublin. O’Eeilly, Very Eev. John, P.P., Eolestown, Kilsallaghan. O’Donnell, Very Eev. P., D.D., Prefect of the Dunboyne Establish- ment, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth. O’Dea, Eev. Thomas, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth. O’Flaherty, Very Eev. J., P.P., Legland, Newtown-Stewart. O’Eourke, Mr. Denis, Mount Allen, Keadue, Carrick-on-Shannon. O’Donnell, Very Eev. Canon Thomas, P.P., St. Laurence O’Toole’s, North Strand. Prendergast, John P., Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Strand Eoad, Sandy- mount. Phelan, Very Eev. Thomas, P.P., Borrisokane. Prendergast, Eev. J., C.C., Urlingford, Co. Kilkenny. Power, Eev. T., C.S.S.E., St. Mary’s, Clapham, London, S.W, Eowan, Very Eev. Edward, P.P., Valley mount, Blessington, 2 copies. Eyan, Eev. F.M., Monkstown, Co. Dublin. St. Vincent’s College, Castleknock, Dublin. "' ' • .' . -c *. . iliF .* j»i6l^ rr . ■■-I.ir-'isi 'ij 3 - 24 ^ ^ m ■ ; ^ '.»•■, • .j.'. ‘ «w r ••■ :' - ^ > ■. '>j .u'i j, ■ ,^'- -y- •: :- 'r'**- c - .*■:-•* ■■ " ' --^r -.J-' .r:-i^,