haviour towards them, helped not a little to lowest, it is large, and almost incredible, had we not such incontestable authority for it." This rebellion," says Perinchief, "yielded fresh matter of reproach to his majesty, to whose councils, at first secretly, they [the faction in the English parliament] whispered, and at last publicly imputed, that horrid massacre: which slanders were coloured by the arts of the Irish rebels, who, to dishearten the English from any resistance, bragged that the queen was with their army; that the king would come amongst them with auxiliary forces; that they did but maintain his cause against the puritans; that they had the king's commission for what they did; shewing indeed a patent that themselves had drawn, but thereto was affixed an old broad seal that had been taken from an obsolete patent out of Farnham-abbey, by one Plunket, in the presence of many of their lords and priests, as was afterwards attested by the confession of many "."-The same aspersions are taken notice of in the Icon Basilike: "It fell out, as a most unhappy advantage to some men's malice against me, that when they had impudence enough to lay any thing to my charge, this bloody opportunity should be offered them, with which I must be aspersed. Although there was nothing which could be more abhorred to me, being so full of siu against God, disloyalty to myself, and destructive to my subjects. Some men took it very ill not to be believed, when they affirmed that what the Irish rebels did, was done with my privity (at least), if not by my commission. But these knew too well, that it is no news for some of my subjects to fight, not only without my commission, but against my command and person too: yet all the while to pretend they fight by Life of K. Charles, p. 19. hinder a reconciliation between him and his people. my authority, and for my safety." And in the paragraph before, is observed, that "that sea of blood, which hath been there [in Ireland] cruelly and barbarously shed, is enough to drown any man in both eternal infamy and misery, whom God shall find the malicious author or instigator of its effusions "." The king, we see, according to these writers, was greatly abused, when considered as one privy to the Irish rebellion.-Burnet also tells us, "That the earl of Essex told him, that he had taken all the pains he could to enquire into the original of the Irish massacre; but could never see any reason to believe the king had any accession to it. He did indeed believe, that the queen hearkened to the propositions made by the Irish, who undertook to take the government of Ireland into their hands, which they thought they could easily perform and then, they said, they would assist the king to subdue the hot spirits at Westminster. With this the plot of the insurrection began; and all the Irish believed the queen encouraged it. But in the first design there was no thought of a massacre: that came in their head as they were laying 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 "." Mr. Hume suggests the following arguments, to prove that Charles had no hand in the Irish rebellion. 1. "Ought the affirmation of perfidious infamous rebels ever to have passed for any authority? 2. "Nobody can tell us what the words of the pretended commission was. That which we find in Rush a King Charles's Works, p. 671. Times, vol. I. p. 60. Burnet's History of his own But that which had as great an influence worth's and in Milton's works, Toland's edition, is plainly an imposture; because it pretends to be dated in October 1641, yet mentions facts which happened not till some months after. It appears that the Irish rebels, observing some inconsistence in their first forgery, were obliged to forge this commission anew, yet could not render it coherent nor probable. 3. "Nothing could more obviously be pernicious to the king's cause, than the Irish rebellion; because it increased his necessities, and rendered him still more dependent on the parliament, who had before sufficiently shewn on what terms they would assist him. 4. "The instant the king heard of the rebellion, which was a very few days after its commencement, he wrote to the parliament, and gave over to them the management of the war. Had he built any projects on that rebellion, would he not have waited some little time to see how they would succeed? Would he presently have adopted a measure which was obviously so hurtful to his authority? 5. "What can be imagined to be the king's projects? To raise the Irish to arms, I suppose, and bring them over to England for his assistance. But is it not plain, that the king never intended to raise war in England? Had that been his intention, would he have rendered the parliament perpetual? Does it not appear by the whole train of events, that the parliament forced him into the war? 6. "The king conveyed to the justices intelligence, which ought to have prevented the rebellion. 7. "The Irish catholics, in all their future transactions with the king, where they endeavour to excuse their insurrection, never had the assurance to plead his commission; even amongst themselves they dropped as any thing in widening the breach be that pretext. It appears that Sir Phelim O'Neale chiefly, and he only at first, promoted that imposture. 8. "O'Neale himself confessed the imposture on his tryal, and at his execution. 9." It is ridiculous to mention the justification which Charles II. gave to the marquis of Antrim, as if he had acted by his father's commission. Antrim had no hand in the first rebellion and massacre. He joined not the rebels till two years after, and he performed important services to the king, in sending over a body of men to Montrose "." Thus have I given the reasons alleged by the friends of Charles, to prove he had no hand in the Irish rebellion. The impartiality of history requires a representation of the arguments alleged against him, on this head, by his adversaries. The reader will remember, that I am no ways answerable for the conclusiveness of the one side or the other. 1. It is affirmed, that the king was ever friendly to the Irish papists. Milton, who alleges many proofs of it, may be consulted by the inquisitive reader. I will add one or two, which I suppose fell not within his knowledge. The earl of Antrim, in a letter to lord Wentworth, dated York-house, July 17, 1638, has the following passage: "The marquis [of Hamilton] informs me, that the lord of Lorne, who possesses part of my predecessors lands (being the nearest parts of Scotland to Ireland), is providing men and arms with all the power he has, which he says and gives out is to encounter me. This man is my enemy, and what his intentions are I do not know; but I thought, upon a History of Great Britain, vol. I. p. 304. in the note. Prose Works, vol. I. p. 445. ⚫ Milton's "The this intelligence, to move the king for arms for his majestie's service, and the better defence of my country." This, I suppose, he did, and his request was complied with by his majesty. For in a letter from Wentworth to the king, dated Dublin, 28th July, 1638, we have the following passage. earl of Antrim shall be observed, as your majesty hath directed. I wish his performance may answer the expectation it seems is had of him. For me, that must in all particulars unloose my heart towards all other respects, as oft as I am honoured to be heard by my gracious master, I neither hope much of his parts, of his power, or of his affections. His lordship lately writ to me to be furnished of arms, and that the magazine for them might be kept at Coleraine. Communicate this with the council here I durst not; for I am sure they would never advise such a strength to be intrusted with a grandchild of the earl of Tyrone : and for myself, I hold it unsafe any store of arms should lye so near the great Scotish plantations in those parts; lest, if their countrymen grow troublesome, and they partake of the contagion, they might chance to borrow those weapons of his lordship for a longer time, and another purpose, than his lordship would find cause to thank them for. They are shrewd children, not won much by courtship, especially from á Roman catholick. I beseech your majestie's further directions in this particular, which shall be obeyed "." It appears indeed, that Wentworth had no good opinion of Antrim's designs; for in a letter, written to his majesty the 11th of August following, speaking of some troops newly raised, he says, "If the earl of Antrim hear of the raising of these troops, your majesty will have him a suitor for one; but I beseech you he * Strafforde's Letters, vol. II. p. 184. See also a passage from lord Wentworth in the note 55. ↳ Id. p. 187. |