1 fied that there was as much difference between them, as between the tribunal of Herod or Pontius Pilate, and that of Trajan or Antoninus. The proceedings of the court held on lord Mountnorris were of the most murderous character. Treatment of the Scotch in Ireland. When the Scotch in 1639, took up arms to resist the wicked attempt of Charles I. to impose on them episcopacy, with the rites, ceremonies, and service of the church of England, the king was apprehensive that they might derive aid from their numerous countrymen in Ireland. To prevent this untoward event, he wrote to Strafford to secure their fidelity by oath. The deputy, in compliance with this order, framed an oath not merely of allegiance, which they would have cheerfully taken, but a renunciation of the covenant. The Scotch were generally rigid puritans. They almost universally reprobated the church of England nearly as much as that of Rome. A great majority of them had subscribed the covenant, whereby they renounced as equally sinful, "popery, prelacy, superstition," &c. Most of them therefore could not take Stratford's oath without perjury. The attempt to enforce it was attended with the most revolting cruelty and oppression. Twenty and thirty persons were arrested under one warrant, and beaten and abused by the soldiers employed to transport them to the magistrates. Enormous fines and rigorous imprisonment were most unmercifully inflicted on the recusants. Every cruelty that could be perpetrated short of capital punishments, was tried to accomplish the object so much at heart with the king and his deputy. The success did not correspond with the violence employed. Few took the oath. Thousands fled from their homes into Scotland, or lurked in the wild parts of Ireland.t *"Sir James Montgomery deposed, that the warrant was executed with great cruelty, 20, 30, names in a warrant, the officers beating, wounding, and imprisoning them."516 +"Men, women, and all other persons above the years of sixteen, constrained either presently to take the oath, and thereby renounce their national covenant, as seditious and traiterous, or with violence and cruelty to be haled to the jail, fined above the value of their estates, and to be kept close prisoners; and so far as we know, some are yet kept in prison, both men and women of good quality, for not renouncing that oath which they had taken 40 years since, in the obedience to the king, who then lived. Besides, a cruelty ensued, which may parallel the persecutions of the most unchristian time: for weak women dragged to the bench to take the oath, died in the place, both mother and child; hundreds driven to hide themselves, till in the darkness of the night they might escape by sea into Scotland, whither thousands of them did fly, being forced to leave corn, cattle, houses, and all they possessed to be a prey to their persecuting enemies, the lieutenants officers. And some indicted and declared guilty of high treason, for no other guiltiness but for subscribing our national eath."517 516 Nalson, U. 64, 517 Rushworth, VIII. 771. Among the most striking cases of ruinous fines were those of a Mr. Stuart and his family, who were all convened before the castle chamber. He and his wife were each fined 5000l. and each of his two daughters 3000/.* amounting to 16,000l. equal at the present value of money, to the enormous sum of about 400,000 dollars! A Mr. Gray was sentenced at the same time, to pay a fine of 3000l. Strafford had the temerity, at his trial, to assert that those fines were no more than the heinousness of the offence deserved,† and that his purpose was, "fairly, without any restraint or violence offered, to endeavour by such manner of means as this, to secure the king of the loyalty and allegiance of his subjects."518 It is very true that these fines were imposed in the castle chamber. But the members were nothing more than puppets in the hands of the deputy, by whom they were ordered and directed as arbitrarily as a band of Janizaries by the sultan. He could not keep himself within the bounds of decency, when pronouncing sentence-but inveighed against the parties with the utmost violence and virulence, declaring that "he wanted terms to set forth the heinousness of this cause; and that he was to leave his sword ; but, if it pleased his majesty to return him thither again, he hoped to have such as would not conform themselves to the discipline of the church, rooted up stock and branch."519 Ecclesiastical despotism of Strafford. A convocation of the protestant clergy of Ireland, was held in Dublin during Strafford's administration, on the subject of framing a liturgy for the church of that kingdom. They met in two distinct bodies, the bishops in the upper house and the remainder of the clergy in the lower. The members of the latter were inclined to puritan *" Richard Salmon deposed, that at the proceedings against Mr. Stuart, he being willing to take the first part of the oath as to allegiance and supremacy, but the later part as to ecclesiastical duties he durst not. My lord told him they had other oaths for that; but this was for both; and those who were obedient to ecclesiastical orders, he would lay his hands under their feet to do them good; but whosoever would resist he would prosecute to the blood; that my lord said further, they had made him forget himself by putting him into some passion; that they were traitors and rebels, and that if his majesty would honour him so much as to send him back again he would eradicate root and branch of all that nation out of the kingdom of Ire-' land, saving the lords and others that had taken the oath. That Mr.. Stuart was fined 5000l. his wife 5000l. his two daughters 3000l. a piece and James Gray 3000l."520 "As to the greatness of the fine imposed upon Stuart and others, he conceived it was not more than the heinousness of their offence deserved; yet had they petitioned, and submitted the next day, that would wholly have been remitted."9521 This declaration was made when he was about to quit the administration, and return to England. 518 Rushworth, VIII. 503. 519 Idem, 498. 529 Nalson, II. 78. ism, as were many of the upper, among the rest, the primate, Usher. A committee was appointed in the lower house, to consider and report on the English canons. This committee had made considerable progress in the duty confided to them, and were about to suggest various alterations in the canons submitted to them, when the deputy was informed of the course which the affair had taken. He was very wroth, and sent for Dr. Andrews, the chairman of the committee, ordering him to bring the book of canons, with its marginal notes, and the report which he was to present that evening.* When he saw it, he was *"I found that the lower house of convocation had appointed a select committee to consider the canons of the church of England; that they did proceed in the examination without conferring at all with their bishops; that they had gone thorough the book of canons, and noted in the margin such as they allowed with an A. and on others they had entered a D. which stood for deliberandum; that into the fifth article they had brought the articles of Ireland to be allowed and received under the pain of excommunication; and that they had drawn up their canons into a body, and were ready that afternoon to make report in the convocation, I instantly sent for dean Andrews, that reverend clerk, who sat, forsooth, in the chair at this committee, requiring him to bring along the foresaid book of canons, so noted on the margin, together with the draught he was to present that afternoon to the house: this he obeyed. "But when I came to open the book, and run over their deliberandums in the margin, I confess I was not so much moved since I came into Ireland. I told him certainly not a dean of Limerick, but an Ananias had sate in the chair of that committee; however sure I was, Ananias had been there in spirit, if not in body, with all the fraternities and conventicles of Amsterdam; that I was ashamed and scandalized with it above measure. I therefore said he should leave the book and draught with me, and that I did command him upon his allegiance he should report nothing to the house from that committee till he heard again from me. "Being thus nettled I gave present direction for a meeting, and warned the primate, the bishops of Meath, Kilmore, Rapho, and Derry, together with dean Leisley, the prolocutor, and all those who had been of the committee, to be with me the next morning. "Then I publickly told them, how unlike clergymen, that owed canonical obedience to their superiors, they had proceeded in their committee; how unheard a part it was for a few petty clerks to presume to make articles of faith, without the privity or consent of state or bishop; what a spirit of Brownism and contradiction I observed in their deliberandums, as if indeed they purposed at once to take away all government and order forth of the church; and leave every man to chuse his own high place, where liked him best. "But these heady and arrogant courses they must know I was not to indure, nor if they were disposed to be frantic in this dead and cold season of the year, would I suffer them either to be mad in the convocation or in their pulpits."500 622 Strafford, I, 343, in an extreme passion; reproached the dean with great severity; told him that it was an Ananias that had presided over their proceedings -directed him to leave the draught of the report with him, and commanded him, on his allegiance, not to proceed further in the business till he heard from him. Having examined the draught, he sent for the bishops; reproved them severely; and peremptorily forbad them to admit of any discussion, and ordered that no question should be taken but on allowing the articles of the church of England in toto, yea er nay. He desired the primate to frame a canon to this effect, and send it to him for examination. Disapproving it, he drew up one after his own fancy, in which "excommunication is denounced against all those who should affirm that the articles of the church of England were such as they could not subscribe unto." To this the primate objected, telling him that he was apprehensive it would not be ratified. This opinion was predicated on the well-known fact, that several of the members of both houses, particularly the lower, had concurred in the necessity of making alterations in the English canons. The deputy was inflexible. His "high behests" were supreme law. They did not dare, except one individual, to gainsay his orders. The question was put as he directed, and was carried unanimously in both houses, very much to the mortification of many of the members. Thus by one arbitrary individual was the faith and religious discipline of a nation decided for nearly two centuries past, and probably for many centuries to come! Strafford was desirous of being revenged on Dr. Andrews for the course he had steered in the convocation-and advised his promotion to the bishopric of Loughlin and Ferns, the income of which was quite shabby and contemptible-" It was," to use his own words, "so saddle girt and spur galled, as, if the devil himself were the rider, he could not make well worse of it than it is already."523 With this recommendation, archbishop Laud complied. Case of lord Mountnorris. The case of lord Mountnorris next demands attention. The proceedings on the trial of this nobleman were so extraordinary-the result so wholly unjustifiable-and the punishment awarded so utterly beyond the offence, that if it were not recorded with the signatures of the members of the council, it would be disbelieved and regarded as a libel. Lord Mountnorris, occupying the high stations of vice-treasurer and receiver-general of Ireland, one of the principal secretaries of state and keeper of the privy seal, had attracted the wrath of Strafford, by interfering in defence of some of the victims of his tyranny. At a review after this event, a relation of his for some impropriety of conduct, was rebuked by the deputy, who believing, or pretending, that he sneered at the rebuke, struck him with a cane; or, according to the statement in the sentence of the council, simply laid his cane on his shoulder. It must be observed, that it is utterly improbable that a man of Strafford's imperious disposition and violent temper, would be satisfied with barely laying a cane on the shoulders of a person against whom he had taken offence-and it is not unfair to conclude 523 Strafford, I. 380. that he disgraced him by a stroke. This, however, is unimportant as to the ultimate result. Some time afterwards this relation, who was then in attendance on Strafford, let a stick fall on the foot of the deputy, who was afflicted with the gout. The circumstance being told to lord Mountnorris in a large company, he unfortunately observed"Perhaps it was done to revenge the affront offered to him-but he has a brother who would not take such revenge." "The very head and front of his offending, had this extent, and no more." It is hardly credible, but is nevertheless true, that for these expressions, which Malice herself could scarcely torture into any thing approaching to criminality, Strafford had the noblemen tried by a court martial,* and without al "Before this council I charged the lord Mountnorris with his speeches concerning me, which his majesty, I humbly thank him, had given me a warrant to do. In short, the words were fully proved, and attested in his presence by the lord Moore and sir Robert Loftus, and, if there were need, will be, I am sure, by a dozen persons more, so publicly was he pleased to traduce me, and fondly to endanger himself. After a full and clear hearing of all he could say in his own justification, they proceeded to sentence him upon the thirteenth and one and fortieth articles of the public orders in print for the good government or ordering the army. And so have adjudged him to be imprisoned, disarmed, and to be cashiered and banished forth of this army, as having offended against the one and fortieth article, and further adjudged him to die, as having offended against the thirteenth article. But myself and all the captains will become most humble suitors to his majesty to pardon him the punishment of death, which in strictness might be justly inflicted upon him! And till we receive his majesty's further pleasure therein, he is to remain here a prisoner in the castle under the custody of the constable."524 Extracts from the judgment of the court martial held on lord Mountnorris, Dec. 12. 1635. "We the lord deputy called a council of war, who being this day assembled, we the lord deputy in the presence of the said lord Mountnorris did charge him this offence, that within three or four days or thereabouts, after the end of the parliament, it being mentioned at the lord chancellor's table, that after we the lord deputy had dissolved the parliament, being sitting down in the presence chamber, one of our servants in moving a stool happened to hurt our foot then indisposed through an accession of the gout; that one, then present at the lord chancellor's table, then said to the lord Mountnorris, being there likewise, that it was Annesley, his lordship's kinsman, and one of the lord deputy and general's gentlemen ushers, that had done it. Whereupon the lord Mountnorris then publickly and in scornful, contemptuous manner, answered, "Perhaps it was done in revenge of that public affront which my lord deputy had done him formerly; but he has a brother that would not take such a revenge" Which charge being so laid, the lord Mountnorris was required by this council of war to make answer thereunto. Who going about to 524 Strafford, 1, 498. |
