This answer lord Muskerry communicated to the general assembly, then sitting at Kilkenny; as an indication that his excellency was disposed to support, or at least would not disavow, any agreement they should make with Glamorgan. Upon which presumption, the assembly resolved to conclude a public peace, for civil matters, with the marquis of Ormond, on his own terms; after they had made a private one with that earl for matters of religion; which last they soon after did about the latter end of August, 1645. The government's determined opposition to a peace with the Irish, on any tolerable terms, made it absolutely necessary to keep this last transaction secret. But a copy of Glamorgan's treaty having been accidentally found,* soon after its conclusion, it was transmitted to the English parliament, and by them made public. And lord Digby, who was then in Dublin, fearing that the large concessions,† in point of religion, which the confederate catholics had obtained by that peace, might alienate the affections of his majesty's protestant subjects in both kingdoms, did, in concert with the lord-lieutenant, summon the earl of Glamorgan before the council; where they confidently accused him of having either forged, or surreptitiously obtained his majesty's commission; upon which, on the 26th of December, that earl was committed close prisoner to the castle of Dublin.§ Ormond to lord Muskerry, affected to consider it as a formal stipulation on the part of the chief governor, to concur with the earl (Glamorgan) in all his transactions, and to ratify all his engagements."-Ib. p. 254. In the pocket of Malachias O'Kelly, titular archbishop of Tuam, when he was killed near Sligo.”—Carte's Orm. vol. i. fol. 553, "The confederates, for the present, had receded from the demand of an act of parliament for securing the possessions of the clergy, as difficult and prejudicial to his majesty."-Lel. Hist. of Irel, vol. iii. p. 268. Secretary Nicholas, in a letter to the marquis of Ormond, from Oxford, on this occasion, says, 66 we are all here much amazed at the news of lord Herbert's (Glamorgan's) impudent action, to say no more of it; which hath most extremely prejudiced his majesty and his affairs here."--Carte's Orm. vol. iii. fol. 447. "When Glamorgan's imprisonment was known to the confederates at Kilkenny, that event put them into a terrible consternation. Some cried out to arms, and were immediately for besieging Dublin, to set him free. The council labored to cool the flame, but were forced to submit to the calling of a new assembly in an inconvenient time. They wrote to the lord-lieutenant, pressing Glamorgan's release as absolutely necessary for the relief About the same time the king was prevailed upon, publicly to disavow, in a message to both houses of the English parliament, Glamorgan's commission, and thereby made void the peace, lately concluded with the confederate catholics, in virtne of it.* In what light we are to consider his majesty's public disavowal of Glamorgan's commission, may, I think, partly be gathered from his dispatch to the lord-lieutenant and council of Ireland on that occasion; wherein, among other things, he says, of Chester, then besieged and in great distress; for which service three thousand men were ready to embark, and nothing wanting but the ships, for which Glamorgan had contracted, to transport them. That all was at a stand by his imprisonment; and neither that expedition, nor the treaty of peace (with Ormond) could go on, till he was at liberty."—Carte's Orm. vol. i. fol. 562. But, it seems, Chester was lost by the delay of sending these three thousand Irish to its relief, occasioned by Glamorgan's imprisonment; for sir Edward Walker informs us, “ that had not the designed relief from Ireland been stopt, by the accusation and imprisonment of the earl of Glamorgan, that place had not so soon fallen into the rebels' hands; and might possibly have been the basis of a new fortune to his majesty."-Historical Discourses fol. 151. “ Ormond, then in Dublin, under pretence of treating, drew Glamorgan thither, and made him a prisoner."-Borlase's Hist. of the Irish Reb. fol. 251. "His majesty's message to the (English) parliament, disowning Glamorgan's treaty with the confederates, was on the 29th of January, 1645-6,” -Enquiry into the Share, &c. p. 187. "Nor could Ormond seriously believe," says Dr. Leland," that the king was incapable of granting such a commission as Glamorgan pleaded, or of ratifying his transactions with the Irish, when he considered the extent of those powers, he himself had received from his majesty." Hist. of Ireland, vol. iii. p. 268.—“ The articles of his (Glamorgan's) treaty scarcely amounted to any thing more, than Ormond himself had been empowered to grant. Yet to allay the public ferment Glamorgan was committed to custody, and the next day examined before a committee of the council."-Id. ib. p. 270. Sir Edward Hyde, in a letter to secretary Nicholas, dated 1646-7, says, "I care not how little I say in that business of Ireland, since those strange powers and instructions given to your favorite Glamorgan, which appear to me inexcusable to justice, piety and prudence."-Chane. Clarendon's State Papers, vol. ii. p. 337. from Graing. Biogr. Hist. vol. iii. p. 19. This discovery of Glamorgan's peace, "coming to my lord-lieutenant's knowledge, the earl of Worcester, ignorant of the matter, was by letters invited to Dublin, where, accused by my lord Digby, the king's principal secretary, he was made prisoner in the castle of Dublin,”—Leyburne's Mem. Pref. p. xi. "the truth is, that the pressing condition of my affairs, obliging me to procure a peace in Ireland, if it might be had on any terms safe to my honor and conscience, and to my protestant subjects there; and finding also that the said peace could not be gained but by some such indulgence to the Roman catholics, in point of freeing them from the penalties imposed upon the exercise of their religion, as although justly and duly I might grant, yet haply, in a public transaction, could not be without some scandal to such of my good subjects as might be apt to be wrought upon by their arts, who did continually watch all opportunities to blast the integrity of my actions; I thought fit, over and above my public power, to assure the said Roman catholics, in a less public way, of the said exemptions from the penalties of the laws; and of some such other graces as might, without blemish to my honor and conscience, and without prejudice to my protestant subjects, be afforded them. With the knowledge of those secret instructions to the marquis of Ormond, I thought fit to acquaint the earl of Glamorgan, at his going to Ireland; being confident of his hearty affection to my service; and withal, knowing his interest with the Roman catholic party to be very considerable, I thought it not unlikely that the marquis of Ormond might make good use of him, by employing that interest, in persuading them to moderation, and to rest satisfied upon his (Glamorgan's) engagement also, with these above-mentioned concessions; of which, in the present condition of affairs, Ormond could give them no other but a private assurance; and to that end, it was possible, I might have thought to give unto the said earl of Glamorgan such a credential as might give him credit with the Ro man catholics, in case Ormond should find occasion to make use of him, either as a further assurance of what he (Ormond) should privately promise; or in case he should judge it neces sary to manage these matters for the greater confidence, a part by him (Glamorgan) of whom, in regard of his religion and interest, they might be less jealous."+ Although this letter to the lord-lieutenant and council is dated Here is a plain confession, that he gave these secret instructions to the marquis of Ormond (to grant a repeal of the penal laws), and that Glamorgan treated with the confederates on that assurance from the king. t "At the very time of the king's public letter to the lord-lieutenant and January 31st, 1645-6, wherein he orders, " that the charge begun against the earl of Glamorgan be thoroughly and diligently prosecuted :" yet in a private letter written to the lord-lieutenant the day before, viz. January 30th, he commands him to suspend the execution of any sentence against the earl, until, says he, you inform me fully of all the proceedings; for I believe it was his misguided zeal more than any malice which brought this great misfortune on him and us all."3 CHAP. XVIII. Glamorgan now freed from his confinement, treats with the Nuncio Renuccini; Ormond's opinion of that proceeding. "On the 30th of the same month of December, the earl of Glamorgan, having sent to the lord lieutenant the original. counterpart of the articles of his peace with the confederate catholics, was set free from his close confinement, but still remained a prisoner in the castle, having only the liberty of the house, until his majesty's further pleasure was known. And shortly after, his lordship was enlarged, upon his own recognizance of twenty thousand pounds, and that of the earl of Kildare, and the marquis of Clanrickard, of ten thousand pounds each, to appear on thirty days notice. Soon after his 2 Id. ib. 3 Enquiry into the share K. Charles had, &c. p. 273. 1 Cart. Orm. vol. iii. fol. 562. Council, ordering, among other things, lord Digby's charge against Glamorgan should be thoroughly and diligently prosecuted; he by another letter to the marquis of Ormond, privately directed that the execution of any sentence against him should be suspended. And he still contrived to convey secretly to Glamorgan, repeated assurances of his confidence and friendship."-Leland's Hist. of Irel. vol. iii. p. 274. "We find that his lordship (Glamorgan) produced the original warrant of the 12th of January, 1644-5 (by which he was authorised by the king to treat with the confederates in the manner he did) to the marquis of Ormond, on the 6th of January, 1645-6, and next day sent the marquis a copy of it, written with his own hand, and attested with his name; which copy the marquis sent to the king."-Cart. Orm. vol. i. fol. 554. "But Mr. Carte does not inform us what answer his majesty gave conerning it."-Enquiry into the share, &c. p. 332. enlargement he went to Kilkenny, where he shewed the utmost zeals to bring the confederate catholics to agree to the terms of peace offered by the marquis of Ormond, the defects of which, in the articles of religion, were to be supplied by himself." The Nuncio Renuccini, who some short time before had arrived from Rome,* and had gained considerable influence on the Irish soldiery, the common people, and even on the general assembly, was then at Kilkenny. With him the earl of Glamorgan had chiefly negociated, when he wrote to the marquis of Ormond from thence, that since the high post his excellency held, and the difference of religion, would not permit him to engage openly, he was of opinion, it would not be improper to delegate that office to others, to whom if he would join himself, he doubted not, but in a few days, and even hours, he should obtain whatever should be thought reasonable and honorable." In answer to this letter, his excellency told him,5" that his affections and interests were so tied to his majesty's cause, that it would be madness in him to disgust any man, that had power and inclination to relieve his majesty, and the sad condition he was in; and therefore, that his lordship might securely go on, in the way he proposed to himself, to serve the king, without fear of interruption from him, or so much as enquiring into the means he worked by."+ Such encouragement to proceed 3 Carte's Orm. vol. iii. fol. 562. 4 Cart. Ib. Nunc. Mem. f. 1071. See Enquiry, &c. p. 159. Lord Castlehaven tells us, that "coming near the coast, he was chased by a parliament frigate, commanded by one Plunket; and that, as he was ready to lay him on board, to the great misfortune of the confe derate catholics, Plunket's frigate took fire, to quench which, he was forced to lie-by, and in the mean time the Nuncio got to shore."-Me moirs. "John Baptist Renuccini, archbishop and prince of Fermo, arrived at the river of Kilmare, in a frigate of twenty-one pieces, and twenty-six Italians of his retinue, besides divers regular and secular priests, on the 22d of October 1645."-Borl. Hist. of the Irish Rebel. fol. 206. "This answer of the marquis of Ormond seems inconsistent with a real persuasion, that Glamorgan was not duly authorised to treat with the confederates."-Leh. Hist. of Irel, vol, iii. p. 276. |