« EelmineJätka »
doms in this world, nor give me eternal happiness in the next.”—Mem. of Nuncio Rinuccini, Fol. 1375.
So that his majesty seems fully resolved at this time, to put himself into the hands of the Irish rebels, and gives them leave to expect from him great countenance and favour. The Nuncio about the same time wrote to cardinal Pamphilio at Rome."That the confederates of Ireland have it in their view to transport the holy-faith into Enland by their arms; and that they had determined to send over 10,000 men to the king from their country to that purpose."--Ib. Fol. 1376.
“ But Whitelock says it was observed that the Irish coming over hither, never did any service considerable to the king; but were cut off, some in one place, some in another; in all places the vengeance of God follows blood-thirsty men." Whitelock's Mem. p. 79.
As to the authors of this most execrable insurrection and massacre in Ireland, and the secret springs from which it originally flowed, a late judicious historian gives this account.—"The earl of Antrim and Sir Phelim O Neal, who were at the head of the Irish catholics, having acquainted the pope's nuncio and some of the priests about the queen, how easily they could assume the government of Ireland, and assist the king against the English, letters were writ in the queen's name, and, perhaps, in the king's, authorizing them to take up arms and seize the government. The Irish received the orders with pleasure; but concluded further among themselves, that it was necessary at the same time to extirpate the protestants out of that kingdom, before they could with safety transport themselves to England. That this was their design appears from their remonstrance published the very day of their insurrection, in
which they say—That having some liberty of religion granted them by the king, they perceived the parliament was wresting his majesty's prerogative from him, in order to extinguish their religion :
therefore to support his majesty's prerogative, and confirm his royal love to them, they had taken up
“ They called themselves the queen's army, and published a proclamation from their camp at Newry, declaring that they acted by the king's commission, under the great seal of Scotland, dated at Edinburgh, October 1, and by letters under his sign manual of the same date with the commission; which, I believe with Lord Clarendon, was a forgery; though it is a little (rather extremely) unaccountable, that his majesty should never, by any public act or declaration of his own, clear himself of so vile a calumny. But though the king (perhaps) gave out no commission; there is too much reason to believe, that the queen and her popish council, and even the king himself was not unacquainted with the design of an insurrection before it took place; and that her majesty gave it all the countenance she could. But when these bloody butchers overacted their part to such a degree, as to massacre near 200,000 protestants in cool blood, to make way for their empire, it was time for all parties to disown them.
Though it cannot be proved," says another author of great weight, " that he excited the Irish rebellion, it may however be affirmed, it was not against him that the Irish took arms; since they never had less reason to complain, than in this and the late reign. Besides, the papists, both Irish and English, always looked upon this prince as their protector, and were ever ready to assíst him. Had he succeeded in his designs, very likely, the condition of the catholics in England and Ireland, yould have been much more happy, and the penal laws in a great measure repealed.”—Neal, Vol. 11. P. 503.---T'indal's Summary, 8vo. Vol. 11.p.305.
Whitelock affirms, “ that the Irish rebels entered into a catholic covenant, and sent their agents to the king to have a free catholic parliament; and they had countenance at Oxford."-Whitelock's Mem. p. 81.
Bishop Burnet says, That in the first design of an insurrection (which all the Irish believed the queen encouraged) there was no thought of a massacre; that came in head as they were laying the methods of executing it. So, as those were managed by the priests, they were the chief men that set on the Irish to all the blood and cruelty that followed."-Burnet's Hist. Tim. Vol. 1. p. 43. “ How far the pope's nuncio and queen's council might be consulted about the massacre, is a secret: but if we distinguish between the insurrection, to assume the government into the hands of the Irish papists, and the massacre which attended it, we may conclude, without any breach of charity, that the English court admitted of the former, though they might (perhaps) wash their hands of the latter."— Neal, Vol. II. p. 505. “There is too much reason,” says Rapin, " to suspect that his majesty had an hand in the Irish rebellion : considering in what juncture of time it broke-out; and the rebel's declarations that they had the king's and queen's authority for what they did.”-Rapin, Vol. XI. p. 305.
But at the restoration of king Charles II. there happened a most memorable and extraordinary event which gave great light into this dark and most detestable atfair. Which take from bishop Burnet." The marquis of Antrim (who had been
at the head of the Irish rebellion,* and whose eslate was confiscated) was thought guilty of so much bloodshed that it was taken for granted he could not be included in the indemnity that was to pass in Ireland. Upon this he came over to London, and petitioned the king to order a committee of council to examine the warrants that he had acted upon. A committee was ordered, of which the earl of Northumberland was the chief (who related this to the earl of Essex, from whom the bishop had it.) He produced to them some of the king's (Charles I.) letters: but they did not come up to a full proof. In one of them the king wrote, that he had not then leisure, but referred himself to the queen's letter; and said, that was all one as if he writ himself. Upon this foundation he produced a series of letters writ by himself to the queen, in which he gave her an account of every one of these particulars, which were laid to his charge, and shewed the grounds he went on, and desired her directions to every one of these. He had answers ordering him to do as he did. This the queen-mother (who was then at court) espoused with great zeal ; and said, she was bound in honour to save him. So a report was prepared to be signed by the committee, setting forth, that he had so fully justified himself in every thing objected to him, that he ought not to be excepted out of the indemnity. This was brought first to
* Lord Clarendon says of him—that at the breaking out of the rebellion " he betook himself to the rebels-that they were glad of his presence that he was very odious to the protestants and obnoxious to the state at Dublin, because. many things were discovered against him of his correspon. dence with the rebels."-Clarend. Vol. iv. p. 607, 609. " He was the main person in the first rebellion, was much relied on by the queen, and was the most engaged in blood-shed of any in the north."--Barnet, Vol. 1. p. 38.
the earl of Northumberland to be signed by him (as chairınan): but he refused it; and said, he was sorry he had produced suCH WARRANTS, but he did not think they could serve his turn; for he did not believe ANY WARRANT from the king or QUEEN could justify so much blood-shed, in so many black instances, as were laid against him. Upon the earl's refusal, the rest of the committee did not think fit to sign the report. So it was let fall. And the king (Charles II.) was prevailed on to write to the dùke of Ormond (lord lieutenant of Ireland) telling him, that he (Antrim) had so vindicated himself that he must get him included in the act of indemnity.”—Burnet's Hist. Tim. Vol. 1. p. 42. “And restore his estate, because it appeared to the appointed to examine it, that what he did was by his father's ORDER OR cos,
The Lord Mazarine, and others in Ireland, not fully satisfied with this, thought fit so far to prosecute the matter, as that the marquis of Antrim was forced to produce in the house of Commons a letter of king Charles I. by which he gave him ORDER for the taking up arms : which being read in the house, produced a general SILENCE." -Calamy's Abridgement, Vol. 1. p.43.
In the letter of king Charles II. to the duke of Ormond abovementioned, writ with his majesty's „own hand, and entered in the signet office, July 13, 1663, there is this remarkable passage
That the referees who had examined the marquis of Antrim's case, had declared to him, that they had seen several letters, all of them of the hand-writing of our ROYAL FATHER to the said marquis, and several instructions concerning his treating with the Irish in order to the king's service. That besides letters and orders under his majesty's own hạnd, there were sufficient evidence and testimonies of several messages and directions