ticularly against the Scots in Ulster, when a peace or cessation was concluded;" it being understood," says lord Digby on this occasion," that, if the Scots submitted not to it, they should then be declared against as common enemies."

The marquis himself was fully sensible of the rebellious dispositions of these Scots. He even owned, in a letter to lord Digby, July 17th, 1644,2" that he doubted not, but that, when they were all able, they would endeavor to be masters of all the harbors and other places of consequence in the king-. dom, on pretence of securing them against papists, and malig nants." Soon after this, he acquainted the earl of Clanrickard,3 "that he had discovered a conspiracy, whereby Drogheda first, and by consequence Dublin, was to have been put into their hands." On the other side, he confessed, that by accepting the command of the confederates army," he might have drawn their dependence upon him, and been able to dispose of their forces, according to his majesty's pleasure, for the advantage of the service, either in Ireland, or elsewhere; that he was assured the confederates, in case of his compliance, would provide the king's army then in his charge; but that, if he refused, they might conceive they were not obliged to it, having, as they alleged, paid all that was promised,* or been damnified by his party in more than remained due, since the cessation." He knew, that actually at that very juncture, these confederates were preparing six hundred barrels of corn, and four hundred beeves, for his army; and, in short, that all his hopes of subsistence then depended upon them, and that a breach with them, for which they did not want a color, might have stopt that supply."

1 Carte's Orm. vol. iii. fol. 346. Letter to Ormond.
2 Id. ib. fol. 327.

4 Id. ib. fol. 322.

3 Id, ib. fol. 370.
5 Id. ib.

The confederates had assured Daniel O'Nial, a colonel in the king's service, whom Ormond sent to them on this occasion," that though by the agreement in writing, his excellency was to receive £30,000 yet, to their agents or commissioners who treated with him, he engaged his honor, that £.15,000 should make satisfaction."-Cart. Orm. vol. iii. fol. 308. On occasion of this gentleman's death, in 1669, king Charles in a letter of that date, to his sister, the duchess of Orleans, says, "C poor O'Nial died this afternoon of an ulcer in his guts; he was as honest a man as ever lived; I am sure I have lost a good servant by it."-Sir John Dalrymp. Mem. Append. vol. i. p. 32.

Yet, in opposition to all these motives of duty, necessity, and convenience, his excellency alleged, as his principal reason for not complying," " that if he agreed to either of the ways desired by the Irish; that is," says he, " if I take the charge of their army upon me, or denounce immediately an offensive war against the Scots, not ten protestants will follow me; but rather raise as one man, and adhere to the Scots." Nay "he was confident, he should, in that case, be suddenly and totally deserted by the protestants."

After such a representation of the different dispositions of the protestants and catholics of Ireland at that distracted period, and by so great and competent a judge and witness, who can entertain the least doubt, but that the latter were really, and the former only nominally, his majesty's loyal subjects.

And indeed, not only the confederate catholics, but even several other noblemen of the kingdom, entirely unconnected with them, pressed earnestly for a declaration of hostilities against those violators of the cessation. The earls of Thomond and Clanrickard, and the lords Dillon, Taaffe, Ranelagh, Fitzwilliams and Howth, jointly urged the necessity of that measure in an affecting memorial, addressed to his majesty; wherein, after having representeds" their distracted condition, exposed to the mercy of two powerful armies, the one of the confederate catholics (if," say they," they were disposed to make any invasion upon us) and the other of the Scotch covenanters, and such as adhered unto them, who by burning, spoiling, and committing of cruel and hostile acts, had broken the cessation, and cast off all obedience to his majesty's government; they humbly proposed, that the lord lieutenant and council might be commissioned to proceed in the articles and conditions of peace,* with the moderate and well affected on both sides; and that, in regard the Scotch covenanters and their adherents did refuse to pay obedience to his majesty's government, they might be speedily declared enemies, and his majesty's power employed for the suppressing of them; to which the confederate party," added they, who kept the cessation, would doubtless give their best assistance."

8 Id. ib. fol. 322.

6- Cart. Orm. vol. iii. fol. 323. 7 Id. ib. The marquis of Ormond had before this time, received a commission

to conclude a peace with the confederate catholics.

CIVIL WARS IN IRELAND.

263

(

CHAP. XIII.

The king sends Ormond a commission to conclude a peace with the confederates.

ON the 26th of July, 1644, the marquis of Ormond had received a commission from his majesty, to conclude the peace mentioned in the above memorial with the confederate catholics, upon such conditions as should appear to him just and honorable. In the treaty for that purpose, which was not begun till the 6th of September following, the confederates insisted, as they had before done in the treaty for a cessation, upon the dissolution of the present parliament, and the calling of a new one; and upon the repeal of the penal statutes against the exercise of their religion.

For their first demand, they had now much better grounds,

"On account of its being determined by the death of the lord deputy Wandesford, in 1640, and of the illegal order made by it since, August 7th, 1641, excluding Roman catholics from the house." Carte's Ormond, vol. i. fol. 517-And because, " a considerable number of the commons was then made up of clerks, soldiers, serving-men and others, not legally, or not at all chosen or returned, nine parts of ten of the natural and genuine members thereof being absent, it standing not with their safety to come under the lords justices power.”—Remonstrance from Trim.

In this treaty also, the Irish commissioners proposed," that the Scots in Ulster, who had violated the cessation, and all those that adhered to them, should be proclaimed traitors; but this proposal was likewise rejected."— Cart. ib. vol. i. fol. 519.

In what contempt this house of commons was held, even by the chief governors of Ireland, at that juncture, appears by the privileges having been often insulted by their order of billeting soldiers on the houses of the members in Dublin, during the sessions, and by their proroguing them at pleasure, from the year 1642 to 1646, not less than thirty-eight times, notwithstanding the frequent and clamorous remonstrance of the commons against both these infringements. During the session of 1644, Lambert, the provost-marshal of the city of Dublin, was not afraid to lay violent hands on one Johnson, a member, in contempt of his privilege to drag him barbarously from his house, without hat or cloak, through the streets to the Tholsel, on a warrant for the trifling sum of four shillings; and being warn ed of the danger of thus treating a member of parliament, he scornfully an swered, "undervaluing and slighting his privilege, that he had hanged runy an honester man than he." Which probably was very true.-See Supplem. to the Com. Jour.

than when they treated for a cessation of arms, for they had since learned that his majesty, in a letter of the 2d of July, 1643, directed to the lords justices and marquis of Ormond himself, had commanded them, to" assure the Irish, in his name, that he was graciously inclined to dissolve the present parliament, and call a new one, between that and the 10th of November following; and to take a course to put all those that should be chosen members of said parliament into such a condition, as that they should not be prejudiced of their liberty of assisting, sitting, and voting in said parliament."*

And with respect to the repeal of the penal statutes, the marquis of Ormond himself owned," that the confederates had been assured, by divers, and by some as from the king, that his majesty would not stick at it; lord Taaffe and Mr. Brent affirming, that they had command from the king to give them that assurance; and that generally, all who came from court declared, that it was not only his majesty's sense, but held reasonable by most of his servants on that side, whe ther of the army or others."

To these two points however, his excellency could by no means, be persuaded to agree. Their first proposal of calling a new parliament,† he absolutely rejected, though he knew that the present parliament was irregular and illegal.3«Their new parliament," says he, in a letter to lord Digby on this occasion," is to be, at no hand admitted." And how obstinately he persisted in refusing the repeal of the penal sta tutes, notwithstanding his enlarged powers to grant it, will

1 Berl. Hist. of the Irish Rebellion, fol. 164.

2 Carte's Ormond, vol. iii. fol. 430.

3 Id. ib.

This his majesty had promised in order to induce the Irish to conclude the cessation.-See that letter in Borl. Hist. of the Irish Rebel.

It appears that Ormond would have had his powers to grant a new parliament concealed from the Irish, and that he was displeased at finding they had got intelligence of them. Of this he complained in a letter to lord Digby, January 13th, 1643, “My advice (says he) for the continuance of the present parliament came to be known to some about the court, that gave intimation of it to the Irish. I shall, notwithstanding, deliver my opinion freely and faithfully; but, if I be not unnecessarily represented to them as an hinderer of their desires, I shall be better able to serve the king in what he expects. I wish that none of the Irish may be made acquainted with my dispatches."--Carle's Orm, vol. iii. fol. 228.

hereafter appear. In short, he seems to have all along concealed his own settled aversion to the peace, under the pretence+ "of taking with him, in that great work, the advice of the privycouncil," in which, nevertheless, he owned, "that his majesty had not a ruling member;" it being, as we have seen, composed of men already predetermined against even a cessation with the confederate catholics almost upon any terms.

CHAP. XIV.

The treaty of peace adjourned.

THUS was the treaty adjourned from the 6th of September to the 10th of January following; and afterwards, by means of the same disagreement in the two points above-mentioned, to the 10th of April, 1645.

On occasion of this last adjournment, lord Clanrickard* told

4 Carle's Orm. vol. iii. fol. 340.

The very extraordinary merit and services of this lord, though a Roman catholic, are universally allowed. The marquis of Ormond, in a letter to lord Digby, says, "the earl of Clanrickard's merits and abilities are such that I cannot readily advise of any proportionable reward and encouragement for them. But it shall be my work, and an hard one it will be, his majesty and the present times considered, to find out what will best fit and please him."—Carte's Orm. vol. iii. fol. 289.

"To whom (Clanrickard) the English resorted with much security, and were indeed by him relieved with great hospitality, to an incredible charge of his own purse, hanging many, though of his own kindred, whom he found imbrued in blood, greatly resenting the barbarity and inhumanity of the Irish, inasmuch as Hubert Boy Bourk and sir Ulick Bourk, his near relations, preying on the English, he often frustrated, by discovering their designs, and furnishing sir Charles Coote, from time to time, with supplies of arms and ammunition, to oppose them and impoverish their country.” -Borl. Irish Rebel. fol. 100.

"He was not (says Mr. Grainger) a man of shining abilities, but of great humanity, courtesy, and generosity, strongly attached to his friends, a true lover of his country, above all sordid views or motives of private interest; he adhered to the crown from principle, and had a particular affection to the king's person. Judge Lindsay has given a masterly character of him before his book (Memoirs); this character is contrasted with that of the marquis of Ormond."-Biograph, Hist. vol. ii. fol. 149.