of Eliogurty, Killemanna, Clanwilliam, and Middlethyrde; who, as soon as they had got their prey, divided it, and retired to their several parishes. Among other English who suffered, a great number of cows and sheep were taken from Mr. Kingsmill, of Ballyowen, brother-in-law to the lord president. Sir William St. Leger, upon notice thereof, came in two or three days with two troops of horse, in great fury* to Ballyowen; and being informed the cattle were driven to Eliogurty, he marched that way. As he set forth, he killed three persons at Ballyowen, who were said to have taken up some mares of Mr. Kingsmill; and not far off, at Grange, he killed or hanged four innocent laborers; at Ballymurrin six, and Ballygalburt eight; and burnt several houses. From thence Captain Paisly marching to Armail, killed there seven or eight poor men and women, whom he found standing abroad in the streets, near their own doors inoffensively; and passing over the river Ewyer, marched to Clonalta, where meeting Philip Ryan, the principal farmer of the place, a very honest and able man, not at all concerned in the robberies, he, without any enquiry, either gave orders for, or connived at his being killed, as appeared by his cherishing the murderer. The captain went from thence to meet the lord president; where several of the chief nobility and gentry of the country, being surprized at these rash and cruel proceedings, waited upon his lordship with their complaints, which were rejected, and the captain applauded for what he had done. Among these gentlemen were, James Butler, lord baron of Dunboyne; Thomas Butler, of Kilconnel; James Butler, of Kilveylagher; Theobald Butler, of Armail; Richard Butler, of Ballynekill; Philip O'Dwyer, and several others of good quality.

"They observed to the lord president how generally the people were exasperated by these inconsiderate cruelties, running distractedly from house to house; and that they were on the point of gathering together in great numbers, not knowing

* “In Munster the first symptoms of commotion appeared in some petty ravages and robberies, which were punished by the lord president, sir William St. Leger, with a barbarous severity. The disaffected remonstrated to St. Leger on the rigor of his executions, were received with disdain and insolence, pleaded the necessity of self-defence, and declared for war.”—Lel. Hist. of Ireland, vol. iii, p. 154.

what they had to trust to, and what was likely to be their fate. They told him that they waited upon his lordship, to be informed how affairs stood, and that they coveted nothing more than to serve his majesty and preserve the peace, and desired that he would be pleased to qualify them for it with authority and arms; in which case they would not fail to suppress the rabble and se. cure the peace of the country. The president did not receive their representation and offer in the manner they expected; but in an hasty furious way, answered them, that they were all rebels, and that he would not trust one soul of them; but thought it more prudent to hang the best of them. And in this extraordinary humor he continued all the while these and other persons of quality, their neighbors, were waiting upon him. This made them all withdraw and return to their houses; much resenting his rudeness and severity, as well as very uncertain about their own safety; some of them imagining that this distrusting of their loyalty and destroying of their reputations,was the preface to a design of taking away their lives. From Clonmell, sir William St. Leger marched into the county of Waterford, and his soldiers in the way as they went and returned from the Wexford rebels, killed several poor harmless people, not at all concerned in the rebellion or in the plunder of the country; which also incensed the gentlemen of that country, and made them prepare for standing on their defence."*

"In this sudden and violent commotion, the southern leaders, however provoked by the cruelties of St. Leger, yet expressed a laudable solicitude to preserve both the persons and the fortunes of the English from any outrage."-Leland, ubi supra, p. 154.

Temple informs us on this occasion, "that sir William St. Leger gallantly pursued these rebels, and that after a long and tedious march, he came upon them unawares, and slew two hundred of them, besides several whom he took prisoners and hanged."-Hist. of the Irish Rebel. p. 159.

Sir William himself, in a letter to the earl of Ormond, November &h, 1641, says "that they were then only a company of ragged, naked rogues, that with a few troops of horse would be presently routed.”—Carte's Orm. vol. iii. p. 38.

And in another letter on the same subject to the same, December the 11th, 1641, acquainting him with what sort of rebels he had been engaged, he says, "never was the like war heard of; no man makes head; one parish robs another, go home and share the goods, and there is an end of it; and this by a company of naked rogues.”—Ib. fol. 47.

He was so keen in the pursuit of this bloody affair, that he says in the

For what wicked purposes the noblemen and gentlemen of that province were thus basely insulted and threatened, so as to be driven to the necessity of arming in their own defence, may be gathered from a letter of the old earl of Cork (so notorious for his rapacity in the two former reigns) to the speaker of the English house of commons, on the 22d of August, 1642, wherein he says that he had, in that short space of time," with the assistance of the earl of Barrymore, the lord viscount Kilmal loch, and his two sons; the lords Dungarvan and Broghill, by the advice of the lords justices and council, indicted the lords viscounts Roche, Mountgarret, Skerrin and Muskerry, and the barons of Dunboyne and Castleconnell, with the son and heir of the lord Cahir; Theobald Purcell, baron of Loughmore; Richard Butler, of Kilcash, Esq. brother to the earl of Ormond, with all other baronets, knights, esquires, gentlemen, freehold. ers, and popish priests, that either dwelled or had done any rebellious act in these counties, in number above eleven hundred persons." And he tells him further, "that he made bold to send these indictments unto him to be presented to the house, to the end that they may be there considered of by such members thereof as are learned in the laws; that if they be wanting in any formal point of law, they may be reformed and rectified and returned unto him, with such amendments as they should think fit; and so if the house please to direct to have them all proceeded against to outlawry, whereby his majesty may be entitled to their lands and possessions, which (adds he) I dare boldly affirm was at the beginning of this insurrection not of so little yearly value as two hundred thousand pounds. This proceeding he very properly and emphatically calls, "the work of works."

2 Orrery's State Letters, vol. i.

same letter," his saddles had scarce been off his horses, or himself or his friends shifted for fourteen days."—Ib. id.

CHAP. XIX.

The cause of the insurrection in Connaught.

THAT the like inhuman treatment of the natives in Connaught, by persons placed in authority there, occasioned the first rise, and subsequent extension of the troubles in that province, appears from the authentic testimony of the earl of Clanrickard, who was governor of Galway, during the whole time of this war.

By his lordship's great activity and vigilance, that provincecontinued quiet for many weeks after the insurrection commenced;" and did utterly mislike the proceedings of the insurgents." The county of Galway in particular, on the 6th of December 1641,2 remained undisturbed. But on the 23d of the following month, the case seems to have been very different; which lord Clanrickard seems to impute (in a letter of that date to the duke of Richmond) to the mal-administration of the lords justices, as already related, both before and after the insurrection began.3 "All," says he," are generally discontented with those, who manage the affairs of state here, whom they charge with secret practising in both kingdoms, before the commotions began, to raise parties to destroy their religion, and divert and hinder the king's graces, intended towards them, and by that means, to put them into desperation, that they may forfeit their lives and fortunes. And since the distempers began, the same persons have dis. posed of affairs, as if the design was to put the whole kingdom into rebellion, as now it is."

His lordship in a letter to the earl of Ormond in June following, grievously complained,+ "that insults offered to himself, within the limits of his government, were, at least, connived at; that one of his best manors was ravaged, by some of the army under Ormond's own command;* and that out1 Minute of lord Clanrickard's letter in the council books.

• In June 1642, some regiments, "were dispatched for Connaught, and accompanied thither by the lord lieutenant, who in that expedition took in Knocklynch, a strong castle of Mr. Lynch's; the besieged, except women, not accepting quarter, were put to the sword.”—Ber. Irish Rebel. vol. 104.

in my authority, now grown into contempt; or that your lordships will be pleased to discharge me of the burden of this government, for, in this manner, I may not longer hold it, with disservice to his majesty, and danger and dishonor to myself."

CHAP. XX.

Further severities of the lords justices.

ABOUT this time,1« sir John Read, one of the gentlemen of his majesty's privy-chamber, then in Ireland, being intrusted with letters to his majesty, by the nobility and gentry of the pale, was invited by the lords justices to repair to Dublin, that they might confer with him before his departure; but at his coming to Dublin, he was committed close prisoner to the castle, notwithstanding they wrote for him, and though he told them, he brought letters to his majesty. Soon after this they put him to the rack.”*

Lord Dunsany, who lived quietly in his own house, doing all acts of humanity to the distressed English, even at the hazard of his life, came with his son to Dublin, and surrendered himself to the government," where he was immediately im prisoned, and indicted by a jury which did not consist of free

Cart. Orm. vol. iii. fol. 295. The King's Letter.

2 Id. ib.

"The principal question put to him while on the rack was whether the king was privy to, or encouraged the rebellion? The lords justices devoted to that party, (in the English parliament,) to whose disposition the government of Ireland was entirely left, endeavored in this detestable way, to serve their ends, by calumniating his majesty; at the same time that they promoted their own scheme of an extirpation by racking these gentlemen, whose treatment could not fail of deterring every body from venturing themselves into their power for the future."-Cart. Orm, vol. i. fol. 301.

"Hugh McMahon was put to the rack March 22d, 1641, and sir John Read on the next day."—Id. ib. fol. 295.

"The marquis of Ormond, mentioning in his letter to the justices and council, colonel Read's coming in to him, with two other gentlemen, says, "he thought fit to send these gentlemen to be disposed of according to their lordships' pleasures, and their own demerits."-Warner's Hist. of the Irish Rebel. p. 177.