been anciently interpreted the presaging sign of a future tyrant, but to dream of copulation with his mother, what can it be less than actual tyranny to affirm waking, that the parliament, which is his mother, can neither conceive or bring forth "any authoritative act" without his masculine coition? Nay, that his reason is as celestial and lifegiving to the parliament, as the sun's influence is to the earth: what other notions but these, or such like, could swell up Caligula to think himself a god?

But to be rid of these mortifying propositions, he leaves no tyrannical evasion unessayed; first, "that they are not the joint and free desires of both houses, or the major part;" next, "that the choice of many members was carried on by faction." The former of these is already discovered to be an old device put first in practice by Charles V., since the Reformation: who, when the protestants of Germany for their own defence joined themselves in league, in his declarations and remonstrances laid the fault only upon some few, (for it was dangerous to take notice of too many enemies,) and accused them, that under colour of religion they had a purpose to invade his and the church's right; by which policy he deceived many of the German cities, and kept them divided from that league, until they saw themselves brought into a snare. That other cavil against the people's choice puts us in mind rather what the court was wont to do, and how to tamper with elections: neither was there at that time any faction more potent or more likely to do such a business, than they themselves who complain most.

But "he must chew such morsels as propositions, ere he let them down." So let him; but if the kingdom shall taste nothing but after his chewing, what does he make of the kingdom but a great baby? "The straitness of his conscience will not give him leave to swallow down such camels of sacrilege and injustice as others do." This is the pharisee up and down: "I am not as other men are." But what camels of injustice he could devour all his three realms were witness, which was the cause that they almost perished for want of parliaments. And he that will be unjust to man, will be sacrilegious to God; and to bereave a Christian conscience of liberty, for no other reason than the narrowness of his own conscience, is the most unjust measure to man, and the worst sacrilege to God.

That other, which he calls sacrilege, of taking from the clergy that superfluous wealth, which antiquity as old as Constantine, from the credit of a divine vision, counted "poison in the church," hath ever been most opposed by men, whose righteousness in other matters hath been least observed. He concludes, as his manner is, with high commendation of his own "unbiassed rectitude," and believes nothing to be in them that dissent from him but faction, innovation, and particular designs. Of these repetitions I find no end, no, not in his prayer; which being founded upon deceitful principles, and a fond hope that God will bless him in those errors, which he calls "honest," finds a fit answer of St. James: "Ye ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss." As for the truth and sincerity, which he prays may be always found in those his declarations to the people, the contrariety of his own actions will bear eternal witness, how little careful or solicitous he was what he promised or what he uttered there.

CHAPTER XII.

Upon the Rebellion in Ireland.

THE rebellion and horrid massacre of English protestants in Ireland, to the number of 154,000 in the province of Ulster only, by their own computation; which, added to the other three, makes up the total sum of that slaughter in all likelihood four times as great; although so sudden and so violent, as at first to amaze all men that were not accessary; yet from whom and from what counsels it first sprung, neither was nor could be possibly so secret as the contrivers thereof, blinded with vain hope, or the despair that other plots would succeed, supposed. For it cannot be imaginable, that the Irish, guided by so many subtle and Italian heads of the Romish party, should so far have lost the use of reason, and indeed of common sense, as, not supported with other strength than their own, to begin a war so desperate and irreconcilable against both England and Scotland at once. All other nations, from whom they could expect aid, were busied to the utmost in their own most necessary concernments.

It remains then that either some authority, or some great assistance promised them from England, was that whereon

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 upon them.

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 advice

of parliament, like a kind of pope, sold them many indul-
gences 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 king-
doms, till the very burst of that rebellion. The summer be-
fore 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 them "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 pilgrimage 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 defence of the catholic cause. 99 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. 66 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

hold such frequent and close meetings with a committee of Irish papists in his own house, while the parliament o. 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, im prisoned others his chief favourites, and driven the rest to fly, 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 on their way home, attempts the second time to pervert them, but without success.

No sooner come 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 ner sons shows how faithfully she performed this treasonable contract.”—ED.