Page images

they chiefly trusted. And as it is not difficult to discern from what inducing cause this insurrection first arose, so neither was it hard at first to have applied some effectual remedy, though not prevention. And yet prevention was not hopeless, when Strafford either believed not, or did not care to believe, the several warnings and discoveries thereof, which more than once by papists and by friars themselves were brought him; besides what was brought by deposition, divers months before that rebellion, to the Archbishop of Canterbury and others of the king's council; as the declaration of “No addresses” declares. But the assurance which they had in private, that no remedy should be applied, was, it seems, one of the chief reasons that drew on their undertaking. And long it was before that assurance failed them; until the bishops and popish lords, who, while they sat and voted, still opposed the sending aid to Ireland, were expelled the house.

Seeing then the main excitement and authority for this rebellion must needs be derived from England, it will be next inquired, who was the prime author. The king here denounces a malediction temporal and eternal, not simply to the author, but to the “ malicious author" of this bloodshed: and by that limitation may exempt, not himself only, but perhaps the Irish rebels themselves, who never will confess to God or man that any blood was shed by them maliciously; but either in the catholic cause, or common liberty, or some other specious plea, which the conscience, from grounds both good and evil, usually suggests to itself: thereby thinking to elude the direct force of that imputation which lies

Yet he acknowledges, “it fell out as a most unhappy advantage of some men's malice against him :” but indeed of most men's just suspicion, by finding in it no such wide departure or disagreement from the scope of his former counsels and proceedings. And that he himself was the author of that rebellion, he denies both here and elsewhere, with many imprecations, but no solid evidence. What on the other side against his denial hath been affirmed in three kingdoms, being here briefly set in view, the reader may so judge as he finds cause.

This is most certain, that the king was ever friendly to the Irish papists; and in his third year, against the plain ad vice

upon them.

[ocr errors]

of parliament, like a kind of pope, sold them many indulgences for money; and upon all occasions advancing the popish party, and negotiating underhand by priests, who were made his agents, engaged the Irish papists in a war against the Scots protestants. To that end he furnished them, and had them trained in arins, and kept them up, either openly or underhand, the only army in his three kingdoms, till the very burst of that rebellion. The summer before that dismal October, a committee of most active papists, all since in the head of that rebellion, were in great favour at Whitehall; and admitted to many private consultations with the king and queen.

And to make it evident that no mean matters were the subject of those conferences, at their request he gave away his peculiar right to more than five Irish counties, for the payment of an inconsiderable rent. They departed not home till within two months before the rebellion ; and were either from the first breaking out, or soon after, found to be the chief rebels themselves.

But what should move the king besides his own inclination to popery,

* and the prevalence of his queen over him, to * That Charles I. should have been favourably disposed towards the Roman catholics, is not at all surprising, since his wife, by whom he was governed, was a most bigoted papist, and, in the face of the country, acted so many disgraceful fooleries, at the command of her confessors, that she drew upon herself the contempt of every thinking man. Mr. D’Israeli denominates the degrading penances,”

," and very honestly inserts them in his work. “ One of the most flagrant,” he says, “is alluded to in our history. This was a barefoot pilgrinjage to Tyburn, where, one morning, under the gallows, on which so many jesuits had been executed as traitors to Elizabeth and James I., she knelt and prayed to them as martyrs and saints, who had shed their blood in detence of the catholic cause.” Another example is quoted out of a MS. letter of those times, from Mr. Pory to Mr. Mead, July, 1626. (Harl. MSS. No. 383.) “ The priests also made her dabble in the dirt in a foul morning from Somerset House to St. James's, her Luciferian confessor riding along by her in his coach! They have made her go barefoot, to spin, to eat her meat out of dishes, to wait at the table of servants, with many other ridiculous and absurd penances. And if they dare thus insult over the daughter, sister, and wife of so great kings, what slavery would they not make us, the people, undergo !” (Curiosities of Literature, iii. 404, 405.) This pilgrimage to Tyburn, is noticed in the “King's Cabinet Opened ;” (No. 34, p. 35, 36 ;) where Charles I. is giving an account of the private quarrels between himself and his wife. 6. Having had so long patience with the disturbance of that that should have been one of my greatest contentments, I can no longer suffer those that I know to be the cause and fermenters of these humours to No sooner coine into Scotland, but he lays a plot, so saith the Scots author, to remove out of the way such of the nobility there as were most likely to withstand, or not to further his designs. This being discovered, he sends from his side be about my wife, which I must do if it were but for one action they made my wife do, which is, to make her go to Tyburn in devotion to pray, which action can have no greater invective made against it, than the relation.” This was written July 12th, 1626. The same indefatigable writer (D’Israeli) has discovered in the “Ambassades du Marechal du Bassompierre” (iii. 49) an “unnoticed document,” which, he remarks, “is nothing less than a most solemn obligation contracted (by Henrietta Maria) with the pope and her brother the king of France, to educate her children as catholics, and only to choose catholics to attend them. Had this been known either to Charles (?) or to the English nation, Henrietta could never have been permitted to ascend the English throne. The fate of both her sons shows how faithfully she performed this treasonable contract."-ED.

hold such frequent and close meetings with a committee of Irish papists in his own house, while the parliament of England sat unadvised with, is declared by a Scots author, and of itself is clear enough. The parliament at the beginning of that summer, having put Strafford to death, imprisoned others his chief favourites, and driven the rest to Ay, the king, who had in vain tempted both the Scots and the English army to come up against the parliament and city, finding no compliance answerable to his hope from the protestant armies, betakes himself last to the Irish; who had in readiness an army of eight thousand papists, which he had refused so often to disband, and a committee here of the same religion. With them, who thought the time now come, (which to bring about they had been many years before not wishing only, but with much industry complotting, to do some eminent service for the church of Rome and their own perfidious natures, against a puritan parliament and the hated English their masters, he agrees and concludes, that so soon as both armies in England were disbanded, the Irish should appear

in arms, master all the protestants, and help the king against his parliament. And we need not doubt, that those five counties were given to the Irish for no other reason than the four northern counties had been a little before offered to the Scots. The king, in August, takes a journey into Scotland ; and overtaking the Scots army then

way home, attempts the second time to pervert them, but without success.

on their



one Dillon, a papist lord, soon after a chief rebel, with letters into Ireland ; and dispatches a commission under the great seal of Scotland, at that time in his own custody, commanding that they should forthwith, as had been formerly agreed, cause all the Irish to rise in arms. Who no sooner had received such command but obeyed, and began in massacre; for they knew no other way to make sure the protestants, which was commanded them expressly; and the way, it seems, left to their discretion. He who hath a mind to read the commission itself, and sound reason added why it was not likely to be forged, besides the attestation of so many Irish themselves, may have recourse to a book, entitled, “The Mystery of Iniquity.” Besides what the parliament itself in the declaration of “ No more addreses" hath affirmed, that they have one copy of that commission in their own hands, attested by the oaths of some that were eye-witnesses, and had seen it under the seal: others of the principal rebels have confessed, that this commission was the summer before promised at London to the Irish commissioners; to whom the king then discovered in plain words his great desire to be revenged on the parliament of England.

After the rebellion broke out, which in words only he detested, but underhand favoured and promoted by all the offices of friendship, correspondence, and what possible aid be could afford them, the particulars whereof are too many to be inserted here; I suppose no understanding man could longer doubt who “author or instigator” of that rebellion. It there be who yet doubt, I refer them especially to that declaration of July 1643, with that of “ No addresses," 1647, and another full volume of examinations to be set out speedily concerning this matter. Against all which testimonies, likelihoods, evidences, and apparent actions of his own, being so abundant, his bare denial, though with imprecation, can no way countervail ; and least of all in his own cause.

As for the commission granted them, he thinks to evade that by retorting, that "some in England fight against him, and yet pretend his authority." But though a parliament, by the known laws, may affirm justly to have the king's authority inseparable from that court, though divided from his person, it is not credible that the Irish rebels, who so much tendered his person above his authority, and were by


him so well received at Oxford, would be so far from all humanity, as to slander him with a particular commission, signed and sent them by his own hand.

And of the good affection to the rebels this chapter itself is not without witness. He holds them less in fault than the Scots, as from whom they might allege to have fetched “their imitation ;” making no difference between men that rose necessarily to defend themselves, which no protestant doctrine ever disallowed, against them who threatened war, and those who began a voluntary and causeless rebellion, with the massacre of so many thousands, who never meant them harm.

He falls next to flashes, and a multitude of words, in all which is contained no more than what might be the plea of any guiltiest offender:-he was not the author, because “ he hath the greatest share of loss and dishonour by what is committed.” Who is there that offends God, or his neighbour, on whom the greatest share of loss and dishonour lights not in the end? But in act of doing evil, men use not to consider the event of these evil doings; or if they do, have then no power to curb the sway of their own wickedness; so that the greatest share of loss and dishonour to happen upon themselves, is no argument that they were not guilty. This other is as weak, that “a king's interest, above that of any other man, lies chiefly in the common welfare of his subjects ;” therefore no king will do aught against the common welfare. For by this evasion any tyrant might as well purge himself from the guilt of raising troubles or commotions among the people, because undoubtedly his chief interest lies in their sitting still.

I said but now, thateven this chapter, if nothing else, might suffice to discover his good affection to the rebels, which in this that follows too notoriously appears ; imputing this insurrection to “the preposterous rigour, and unreasonable severity, the covetous zeal and uncharitable fury, of some men;" (by these some men,” his continual paraphrase, are meant the parliament;) and, lastly, “ to the fear of utter extirpation." If the whole Irishry of rebels had feed some advocate to speak partially and sophistically in their defence, he could have hardly dazzled better; yet nevertheless would have proved himself no other than a plausible deceiver. And, perhaps (nay, more than perhaps, for it is affirmed and extant under good evidence, that) those feigned terrors and jealousies

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »