published, these bishops issued an order for suspending the effects of it in the earl of Clanrickard's army, which consisted chiefly of catholics, the only persons that could be affected by it. Upon which irresolution of theirs, the marquis of Ormond failed not to observe, "that, supposing them to have proceeded on just grounds, yet their rashness was not excusable, as appears in that as they hastily denounced their excommunication on the 15th of September, so it was more wisely suspended by the same men on the 16th following." CHAP. XXXI, Ormond approved and advised the king's agreement with the Scots, LORD Clarendon, Dr. Borlase, Mr. Carte, and generally all our historians affirm, " that when the marquis of Ormond first heard of the king's declaration at Dumferling, he did really believe it a forgery, contrived either by the English rebels, or the Irish congregation, to seduce the people from their loyalty and affection to his majesty," However that might be, his lordship certainly knew long before that declaration was published (what was equally destructive to the Irish peace), that the king had agreed to take the covenant, and thereby engaged his solemn promise to endeavor the utter extirpation of these people's religion or persons. For so early as March 5th, 1648, we find, by a letter from himself, that "he understood the kingdom of Scotland had invited his majesty thither to be crowned; but that he was to secure religion, according to the covenant, before he was to be admitted to govern." After which he says, " if his majesty resolves to consent to that condition, in the most rigid construction of it to himself and his subjects, I doubt not but his immediate 5 Cart. Orm. 2 Orm. Let. to Sec. Nicholas. 1 See Borl. Irish Rebel. f. 328. "that Or Dr. Leland more cautiously, and indeed, more truly says, mond affected to believe it a forgery; but that he soon received a private letter from the king, acknowledging that he had really subscribed the declaration, apologizing for this shameful transaction, as the effect of fear or force."-Hist. of Irel, vol. iii, p. 376 going thither is most counsellable."* But he, at the same time, 3866 questioned not, but it would be considered, how inconsistent the covenant was with the peace concluded with the Irish, by virtue of the power given him; and that there would be care taken to give that people no apprehension, that they would be broken with, which might drive them to take desperate ways for their safety." In November 1649, he declared,+ "that he was at no time against the treaty with Scotland; and that much less was he then." In July 1650,5" he believed it then appeared, that the treaty was ended, he hoped, in an agreement with the Scots, so that," adds his lordship, "in place of arguments to dispose his majesty to an accord so necessary, as without, or besides it, I see no near hope of his restitution, I shall apply myself to the use to be made of such an accord in this kingdom" (Ireland). And then he proposes," "that himself may be fortified with some gracious declaration from his majesty, subsequent to the agreement of Scotland, in favor of all those (Irish) that had been, and still continued, loyal and affectionate to his service; and he conceived, that, without such a declaration and purpose as to those, his majesty could not acquit himself with honor to wards that people; whereof," adds he, "many have perished, and more are likely to do so for their loyalty to the crown." 3 Ib. 4 Orm. Let. to sec. Nicholas. Cart. Orig. Pap. vol. ii. p. 415. Nay, in one of his letters on this occasion, he actually vindicates the king's conduct in this particular: I am much deceived," says he, "if it hath not passed for the most orthodox doctrine, with those I take to be the most orthodox men, that in lawful commands (and such certainly is the defence or recovery of their just rights), we are to yield active obedience to papist, nay pagan princes, if we be their subjects; and why not as well to a presbyterian king, I know not."-Carte's Orig. Pap. vol. i. f. 430. That active obedience ought to be paid to the lawful commands of popish, presbyterian, or even pagan princes, is not denied or controverted. The only question here is, whether either popish or protestant subjects are bound to pay such obedience to the unlawful commands of any prince who had broken the public faith, solemnly plighted to them; and who had publicly vowed, in the manner before-mentioned, the utter extirpation of their religion and persons? CHAP. XXXII. The real cause of the clergy's proceedings at James-lown AT the same time that the king's declaration* at Dumfer. ling was notified in form to the Irish congregation, the mar quis of Ormond proposed to make good the peace, upon certain conditions; one of which was the revoking their excommunication. But that they refused to consent to, because, as they alledged among other reasons,t" they understood from his lordship's letter to them on that occasion, that he had sug gested matter unto his majesty for making that declaration, by which, for ought appearing unto them, the king had with drawn his commission from him, and had cast away the na tion, as rebels, from his protection. Nor could they understand (they said) the mystery of preserving his majesty's authority with them, or over them, in such a case; or how it could be done." They added, "that they believed, the king's authority being thus taken from them, the best remedy for hindring the people to close with the parliament, was to return to their former confederacy, as it was intended by the na tion, in case of the breach of the peace, on the part of his majesty." The king's printed declaration was received by the marquis of Ormond, on the 13th of October, 1650, and sent to the commissioners of trust on the 24th of the same month.-Walsh's Hist, of the Remonst. App. f. 123. + In their declaration, annexed to their excommunication, they alledge, which is true," that he had represented to his majesty, that some parts of the kingdom were disobedient, which absolutely deny any disobedience to have been then committed; and that thereby he had procured from his majesty, a letter to withdraw his own person and the royal authority, if such disobedience was multiplied; and so leave the people without the benefit of the peace."-Borl. Irish Rebel. fol 322. from Clarend. The bishops at James-town alledged, as a reason for not revoking their excommunication," that they had perused the declaration which had been published in Scotland, disavowing the peace." Id. ib. fol. 331.-" These bishops urged the declaration in Scotland, as a ground and excuse for all their proceedings."-Id. ib. fol. 332. In the declaration at Dumferling, the king" acknowledged his sorrow for making peace with the papists, and recalled all the commissions granted by him in Ireland.”—Cart. Orm. vol. ii, föl. 131. Hence the earl of Clanrickard, in a letter to lord Muskerry, confesses, "that the king, by that act (declaration) disavowed the peace with the That the king's agreement with the Scots, and the shameful conditions of it, were early known to the Irish in general, is manifest, not only from what has been already mentioned, but also from the following instance of the insincerity of his ma jesty's more recent promises to them. When his majesty first took the resolution of entering into a personal treaty with the Scotch commissioners at Breda, he wrote to the marquis of Ormond, January 23d, 1649,1" to assure him, that though he would endeavor to oblige that nation (the Scots), by all just and honorable condescensions, to engage themselves to enter England in the spring, with a considerable army, for his ser vice; yet he would not, either in the said treaty, or upon any other occasion whatsoever, consent to any thing that should be contrary to the agreement made with the Roman catholics of Ireland; but would fulfil and perform all grants and concessions, which he had either made or promised them, accord. ing to the full extent of that grace, he had always intended that nation; which, as he had new instances of their loyalty and affection to him, he should study rather to enlarge, than to diminish, or infringe, in the least degree." He, at the same time, desired the marquis "to give these assurances to all the Irish Roman catholics." But this letter, it seems, did not reach his lordship till midsummer following; and "that de lay," says Carte," "brought an irreparable mischief upon the king's service; the marquis's continued ignorance of the king's condition and pleasure, disabling him to refute the malicious. reports raised, and the aspersions thrown on the king, for breach of faith, and for having abandoned and given up the Irish; so that as his excellency complains in his dispatches by lord Irish, and took away his protection from them."-Clanrick. Mem. Dub. edit. p. 103. * What Ormond himself says on this occasion, is, "Inasmuch as for the want of encouragement of frequent dispatches, accompanied but with chearful promises, this people took themselves to be absolutely abandoned; mor was I able to refute malicious reports raised to that effect." This letter of Ormond's is dated June 27th, 1650; and the king had consented to make void the peace with the Irish, and had signed both the covenants, national and solemn, before they suffered him to land in Scotland, which was on the 23d of that month.-See sir Edward Walker's Hist. Discourse, Collect, of Orm, Papers, Taaffe," the venom of the forgery had wrought very near a deadly effect, before the remedy came." Thus we see, that before midsummer, 1650, the king's agreement with the Scots, and its ruinous consequences, were not only generally known in Ireland, but also had wrought an almost deadly effect upon the affections of that people towards him. And that their belief of it was founded, not on forgery or malicious reports, but on real matter of fact. And so groundless is the pretence, that the marquis of Ormond was surprised and puzzled at these proceedings of the bishops at James-town, as at an event, of which he was at a loss to divine the cause, that it is manifest, from a letter of his to secretary Long, that he was fully apprised of them, and the motives that produced them, at least fourteen days before they were made public. For having mentioned, in that letter, an answer he had sent to a request of theirs, which he judged would be ill taken, he adds,3 "which answer, whether it will produce a direct declaration against me, and an excommunication of all those that shall adhere to me or not, is more than I am certain of, though I be told it will." This letter is dated the 2d of September; and the clergy's declaration and excommunication, were not published till the 15th of that month. CHAP. XXXIII. The clergy's proceedings at James-town, disapproved of by the generality of the Irish catholics. THESE violent proceedings of the Irish clergy, though, it must be confessed, not unprovoked, were far from being approved of by the generality of the catholics of Ireland. "All the sober professors of the catholic religion," says Clarendon," abhorred them; and most of the commissioners of trust, and the principal nobility, and most considerable gentry remained firm in their particular affection and duty to the king; and in their submission to the authority of his lieutenant, not3 Cart. Collect. Orig. Pap. vol. ii. p. 443. 4 1 Hist. of the Irish Rebel. See lords justices orders concerning Roman catholic priests, vol. i. p. 248, |