« ForrigeFortsæt »
means to be admitted as a proof, or even a presumption, that it was not publisheil ; and far less will it warrant the inference that the doctor is willing to draw froin it. Rapin states, that they gave out that the outrages committed on the Catholics had induced them to leave their country."378 He does not state in what form they “ gave out” this defence: whether orally or in a written vindication. The latter, however, is the more probable course. But we have no proof that this was the reason they “ gave oul” for their flight: it rests on the single declaration of Rapin: and the various instances we have seen of the characteristic infidelity and illiberality of the historians of Irish affairs, in plain and simple points, impose on us an imperious duty to receive their accounts with great circumspection, in cases involved in difficulty or uncertainty.
On this question, the reasoning of Dr. Curry is so strong and conclusive, that there needs no apology for laying it before the reader:
"The king himself was so apprehensive that this affair of the earls "might blemish,' (as he expresses it, in a proclamation on that occasion, the reputation of that friendship which ought to be mutually observed between him and other princes, that he thought it not amiss to publish some such matter, by way of proclamation, as might better clear men's judgments concerning the same. At the same time solemnly promising that it should appear to the world as clear as the sun, by evident proof, that the only ground of these earls' departure, was the private knowledge and inward terror of their own guiltiness." But neither in that proclamation, nor in any other authentic instrument, nor in any manner whatever, did his majesty deign, ever after, to enlighten the world, even with the least glimpse of evident proof, that such was the only motive of these earls' departure. And I shall leave it to the decision of every candid reader, whether the non-performance of his majesty's solemn promise be not a better negative proof of the nullity and fiction of this conspiracy of the earls, than the bare non-appearance of a memorial in their vindication can be deemed of its reality."379
An account of the discovery of the conspiracy, entirely different from the foregoing, has been published: for the trick of the letter was found to be too gross, and had been worn threadbare. It is stated by Carleton, bishop of Chichester, that the earl of Tyrone having possessed himself of some lands belonging to the bishop of Meath, the latter applied to O'Cahan, one of the conspirators, for information on the subject of those lands, which he promised to furnish. The bishop accordingly brought him to Dublin, to give testimony on the subject. Process was issued against the earl, ordering him to appear in that city, to answer the bishop of Derry's claim,* but without reference to any conspiracy or dropped letter. 66 There was no other intention
*“ Tyrone, understanding the bishop sought to recover the lands of the bishopric, told the bishop thus much, My lord, you have two or three bishoprics, and yet you are not content with them: you seek the lands of my earldom. My lord,' quoth the bishop, your earlthen,” according to the bishop of Chichester, “but in a peaceable way to bring the suit to a trial for, let it be well-weighed, as allimportant in deciding on this subject, “ THE COUNCIL THEN KNEW NOTHING OF THE CONSPIRACY.""880
378 Rapin, VIII. 69.
379 Curry, I. 86.
These accounts are in direct opposition to each other, and prove the rottenness of the affair. Dr. Carleton's narrative is a wretched, improbable tale: but if it were true, then the story of the dropped letter is obviously a falsehood : and if the letter were really dropped, and led to the discovery of the conspiracy, then is the bishop's account false. We leave the reader to settle the question of fraud, between them; and venture to submit what appears a much more rational view of the affair than is given by either of the statements.
The greedy courtiers, who finally obtained possession of the im
dom is swoln so big with the lands of the church, that it will burst, if it be not vented.'
“ The bishop, intending in a lawful course to recover the lands lost, found that there was no man could give him better light and knowledge of those things than O'Cane, who had been great with Tyrone; and to make use of him was a matter of difficulty: yet some means being used to him, he came of his own accord to the bishop, and told him that he could help him to the knowledge of that which he sought: but he was afraid of Tyrone. “Nay,' said the bishop, ' I will not trust you; for I know that one bottle of aqua vitæ will draw you from me to Tyrone.
Whereupon he took a book, and laid it on Iris head, saying, “ Ter luiro, ter luiro,' which, my lord of Meath said, (who told me this story,) is one of the greatest kinds of affirming a truth which the Irish have: and after this ceremony performed, they keep their promise.
“O'Cane, using this ceremony, promised to reveal all that he knew in that matter, if he would, on the other side, promise him to save him from the violence of Tyrone, and not to deliver him into England; which he promised to do.
“Whereupon the bishop resolved to bring him to the council of Ireland, there to take his confession. Thus they coming peaceably to the council, the confession of O'Cane was taken. After this, prócess was sent to Tyrone, to warn him to come, at an appointed time, to answer to the suit of the lord bishop of Derry. There was no other intention then but in a peaceable manner to bring the suit to a trial. But behold the burden of an evil conscience! Tyrone had entered into a new conspiracy, to raise another rebellion : of this conspiracy was OʻCane. This thing was secret: THE COUNCIL KNEW NOTHING OF IT, Tyrone, being served with process to answer the suit, began to suspect that this was but a plot to draw him in ; that surely all
the treason was revealed by O'Cane, whom he knew to be of the conspiracy; that the pretence was a process and a trial in law, but THE INTENT WAS TO HAVE HIS HEAD. Upon this bare suspicion, Tyrone re. solved, with such other as was in the conspiracy, to fly; and thereupon fled out of Ireland, with his confederates, and left all those lands in the north of Ireland.”
3s0 Carleton, 233.
381 Idem, 232.
mense estates of the earls, were hungering after them, and anxious to devise some pretext for a seizure. They had recourse to the clumsy contrivance of the letter, the contents of which were probably magnified and exaggerated to the most extravagant degree, accompanied with rumours and threats of a rigorous course to be pursued with those noblemen, if they came to Dublin ; at the same time issuing process for Tyrone to appear there. Thus he and those implicated with hiin in the dropped-letter-contrivance, were placed in the dilemma, to attend, and probably be attainted, or to refuse and be proclaimed rebels and traitors, and pursued with fire and sword, as was the usual mode of proceeding in such cases. In these trying circumstances, they fled for safety to the continent. But so far as the spoliation of the unoffending inhabitants of Ulster is concerned it is of little importance what construction the reader puts on this statement. Without any concern whether it be admitted or rejected, it is barely submitted for consideration, as a far more probable solution of the mystery, than the letter-dropping affair, or the idle story of a Catholic conspirator betraying his dearest friend and accomplice, and running voluntarily into danger of his neck and estate, to make discoveries of property belonging to, and for the benefit of, an entire stranger, and a Protestant!
However the question of the guilt or innocence of the earls may be determined, it does not affect the character of the proceedings of king James, after “ their fugacy," as it is quaintly termed by Sir Thomas Philips. Those proceedings displayed such a flagitious spirit of depredation, such a total disregard of private right and the calls of humanity, such a wanton waste of human happiness, and such base hypocrisy, in cloaking it with a regard for the civilization and the eternal happiness of the natives, as can scarcely be exceeded in the history of human injustice, and warrants the most unqualified reprobation.
For, admitting the guilt of the earls to have been fully and completely established, they and their accomplices alone ought to have suffered for it. It was a violation of every principle of honour and justice, to involve the innocent with the guilty -to proscribe indiscriminately the entire population of six out of the thirty-two counties contained in the kingdom. This was the course pursued in the plantation of Ulster, of which such erroneous statements have been made in all the bistories that embrace the reign of James I. with hardly an exception.
By the “ fugacy" of the earls, every man in the six counties was regarded as having at once, ipso facto, forfeited his lands, which became vested in the crown, to be granted, at the pleasure of the monarch, to whomsoever, and on whatsoever terms, he judged proper.
There were three divisions made of the spoils:
First, to English and Scotch, who are to plant their proportions with English and Scottish tenants ;"
Secondly, to "servitors in Ireland, who may take English or Irish tenants, at their choice;"
Thirdly, to " natives of those counties, who are to be freehold ers.”
582 Hibernica, 53.
The largest and fairest portion of the lands was bestowed on the favoured few of the first class;* to the next were bestowed those of the second quality; and the despoiled Irish were planted on those of inferior quality.
But a malignant feature of this transaction remains behind,-a feature unique in its character. The wretched Irish, victims of a vile scheme of depredation, deprived of their paternal homes, and exiled to the most sterile spots, were barbarously cut off from all chance of ever regaining their possessions; as the undertakers and servitors were bound, under penalty, never to sell to the “mere Irish,”+ nor to Roman Catholics of any nation: for the disposal to persons who did not take the oath of supremacy, and “ conform themselves in religion according to his majesty's laws,"388 was rigorously prohibited and punished.
Now, reader, are you not petrified with astonishment, at this view of the grand and magnificent scheme, which has immortalized the memory of the first Stuart that wielded the triple sceptre of the British dominions ?
To bring this point home to the feelings of an American reader, I
* Orders and Conditions of the Plantation of Ulster. “ 8. That in the surveys, observation be made what proportions, by name, are fittest to be allotted to the Britains; what to the servi. tors; and what to the natives; wherein this respect is to be had, that the Britains be put in places of best safety; the natives to be dispersed; and the servitors planted in those places which are of greatest importance to serve the rest."884
† Articles concerning the undertakers. 57. The said undertakers, their heirs and assigns, shall not alien or demise their portions, or any part thereof, to the mere Irish, or to such persons as will not take the oath, which the said undertakerg are bound to take by the former article: and to that end, a proviso shall be inserted in their letters patents.
“10. The said undertakere shall not alien their portions during five years next after the date of their letters patents, but in this manner, viz. one third part in fee-farm; another third part for forty years or under; reserving to themselves the other third part without alienation, during the said five years. But after the said five years, they shall be at liberty to alien to all persons EXCEPT THE MERE IRISH, and such persons as will not take the vath which the said undertakers are to take as aforesaid."385
Article concerning the servitors. “8. They shall take the oath of supremacy, and be conformable in religion as the former undertakers.
“9. They (the servitors) shall not alien their portions, or any part thereof, to the mere Irish, or to any such person or persons as will not take the like oath, as the said undertakers were to take as aforesaid; and to that end a proviso shall be inserted in their letters patents.”356
383 Hibernica, 70. 384 Idem, 65. 385 Idem, 66. 356 Idem, 65.
venture to state an analogous case, to which I request particular attention. Suppose that the resistance of America, in 1776, had terminated as fatally as the various insurrections of Ireland have done; or, to come nearer to the true state of the case, to make the analogy more complete, suppose a wild, incoherent letter had, in 1774, been dropped in the court of St. James's, accusing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Peyton Randolph, of a conspiracy; suppose that such threats were held out, and such underhand means used, as to induce them to have recourse to "fugacy;" suppose that, in consequence of their flight, George III. imitating the pious example of James I. had seized on the entire province of Vir ginia; had taken the inhabitants, like so many merino sheep, and planted, in the Dismal Swamp, North Carolina, those whose ances. tors, for time immenorial, bad had lordly palaces in the great Limestone valley: and suppose further, that those wretched victims planted in the Dismal Swamp, were condemned to vegetate there, and that the intruders on their possessions in the valley were bound, under heavy penalties, never to sell any part of their own lands to them: suppose, too, that a large portion of the ill-fated inbabitants, who could not be placed advantageously in the Dismal Swamp, were
transported into such other parts,* as, by reason of the waste land therein, were fittest to receive them, and not planted together in one place.” What judgment would he form of such an odious system of rapine and cruelty ? Would he not regard it as a violation of the most holy and sacred rights of human nature, and as branding with infamy the vile projectors of the spoliation and their accomplices ? Such a judgment ought he to form of the "famous northern plantation, so honourable to the king :"387 and ought not the historians who have not merely palliated, but justified and eulogised such upjust proceedings partake of the disgrace of those whose crimes they dared to vindicate?
Who that has understanding to judge between right and wrongor a heart to feel for the ill-fated victims of tyranny, oppression, rapine, and cruelty, can peruse these monstrous details, without execrating the memory of the wretched monarch?
The reader is shocked with this detail. Ile wishes it drawn to a close. He
supposes he has learned all its odious features, and that it is imposible to add a shade to its deformity. But he is quite mistaken: one of the vilest remains to be stated. The wretched natives, thus plundered, thus defrauded of their patrimonial inheritance, were still further plundered, and defrauded of a large portion of the shabby 6 equivalent,” as it was called. In some cases, they did not receive above a half or a third, and in some no part whatever, of what was
Oooos ** The sword-men are to be transported into such other parts of the kingdom, as, by reason of the waste land therein, are fittest to receive them: namely, into Connaught and some parts of Munster; where they are to be dispersed, and not planted together in one place: and such sword-men as have not followers, nor cattle of their own, to be disposed of in his majesty's service."386 387 Leland, II. 504.
268 Hibernica, 55,