his own, clear himself of so vile a calumny. However, though the king gave out no commission, there is too much reason to believe*, that the queen and her Popish council, and even the king himself, were not unacquainted with the design of an insurrection before it took place; and that her majesty gave it all the countenance she could with safety; but when these bloody butchers overacted their parts to such a degree, as to massacre near two hundred thousand Protestants in cold-blood, to make way for their tyranny, it was time for all parties to disown them.

Bishop Burnet observes, "that in the first design of an insurrection there was no thought of a massacre; this came into their heads as they were contriving methods of executing it; and as the people were governed by the priests, these were the men that set on the Irish to all the blood and cruelty that followed." There was a consultation at the Abbey of Multifernan in the county of West-Meath, where it was debated, what course should be taken with the Protestants; some were for expelling them, as the king of Spain did the Moors; others pressed to have them universally cut off; but not coming to a conclusion they left the army to act at discretion †. How far the pope's nuncio and the queen's council might be consulted about the massacre is a secret: if we distinguish between the insurrection, in order 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 wash their hands of the latter.

The parliament, in their declaration of March 9, 1641, say that the rebellion in Ireland was framed and contrived in England, and that they had taken several depositions, proving, that the English Papists were to rise about the same time §; that the rebels said they acted by the king's authority: that they called themselves the queen's army, and declared, that "their purpose was to come to England after they had done in Ireland, to recover the royal prerogative, wrested from him by the Puritan faction in the house of commons." Mr. Pym declared in parliament, that several disbanded officers and soldiers of the king's army went

Bishop Warburton taxes the following insinuations against the king as being "certainly very unjust and groundless." The reader will observe, that Mr. Neal's insinuations go no farther than that the king was acquainted with, if he did not encourage, the design of the Irish to appear in arms. He by no means charges him with consenting or being privy to the massacre. As to the hand he had in the

rebellion, two modern historians have, with great candour, fully stated the evidence pro and con. Dr. Harris in his Life of Charles I. p. 336. 351. And Mrs. Macaulay, vol. 3. p. 84-93, the note. From the arguments stated by these writers it will appear, that there were certainly grounds for Mr. Neal's insinuations, and if so, they cannot be very unjust.-ED.

+ Nalson's Collection, vol. 2. p. 633.

If by the court here be meant the king, bishop Warbuton condemns Mr. Neal, as, "scandalously uncharitable." It is more reasonable to explain Mr. Neal by himself; and the parties whom he particularized, in this very sentence, are, the queen and the pope's nuncio.-ED.

§ Rapin, vol. 2. p. 419, 420, folio edition.

over to Ireland, and listed among the rebels by the king's express warrant, which his majesty denied; but when the matter was examined, it appeared that his authority had been abused by some who were very near his person.

The concern of the court in this dark affair is farther evident, from the relation of the earl of Essex, who told bishop Burnet, "that he had taken all the pains he could to inquire into the original of the Irish massacre, but could not see reason to believe the king was accessory to it; but he did believe that the queen did hearken 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 promised to assist the king against the hot spirits at Westminster." With this the insurrection began, and all the Irish believed the queen encouraged it.

There was farther discovery of this fact at the restoration of king Charles II. when the marquis of Antrim, who had been at the head of the rebellion, and whose estate had been confiscated, finding himself likely to be excluded the act of indemnity, came to London to petition his majesty to examine the warrants he had acted upon. Accordingly a committee of council was appointed, and the marquis produced some letters from the king, which did not amount to a full proof; but in one of them the king says, that he was not then at leisure, but referred himself to the queen's letter, and said, that was all one as if he writ himself. Upon this foundation the marquis produced a series of his own letters to the queen, in which he gave her an account of every one of those particulars that were laid to his charge, and shewed the grounds he went upon, and desired her majesty's direction to every one of these: and he had answers ordering him to do as he did. This affair, says the bishop †, the queen herself, who was then at court, espoused with great zeal, and said, she was bound to save him. So a report was drawn up by the committee, declaring, that he had fully justified himself in every thing; but the earl of Northumberland, who was chairman, refused to set his hand to it, saying," he was sorry the marquis had produced such warrants; but he did not think that they ought to serve his turn, for he did not believe that any warrant from the king or queen could justify so much bloodshed, in so many black instances as were laid against him." Upon the earl's refusing to sign the report the rest of the committee declined it, and there it dropped; whereupon the king himself wrote over to the duke of Ormond, that

*To invalidate the argument drawn from the defence which the marquis of Antrim set up, Dr. Grey urges, that the marquis had not the least concern in the massacre or first insurrection, and refers to the evidence of this produced by the Rev. Thomas Cart, in a piece entitled, "The Irish massacre set in a true light," 1715. Dr. Harris notices the same argument, as advanced by Mr. Hume: but he denies the matter, and says, that " nothing is more certain than that Antrim had a hand in the first rebellion in Ireland." Of this he brings various proofs. Life of Charles I. p. 350.-ED.

+ Burnet's Hist. Life, and Times, vol. 1. p. 54, 55, Edin. ed.

he had so vindicated himself, that he must get him included in the act of indemnity; but the lord Mazarine and others not being satisfied to give their vote in favour of such a criminal, notwithstanding the instructions they had received from England, the marquis was obliged in his own defence to produce in the house of commons a letter from king Charles I. wrote with his own hand, giving him express orders to take up arms *; upon which he was pardoned, and his estate restored.

In the letter of king Charles II. to the duke of Ormond above mentioned, under 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, 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, by reducing them to their obedience, and by drawing some forces from them for the service of Scotland. That besides letters and orders under his majesty's own hand, there was sufficient evidence and testimony of several messages and directions sent from our royal father and our royal mother, with the privity and direction of the king our father, by which it appears, that whatever correspondence or actings the said marquis had with the confederate Irish Catholics, was directed and allowed by the said letters and instructions: and that the king himself was well pleased with what the marquis did after he had done it, and approved of the same."

Here Dr. Grey asks, "And what is all this to the Irish massacre? The letter it is plain, related to his joining Montrose in Scotland." To prove this the doctor appeals to the letter of king Charles II. quoted in the next paragraph; in which his majesty expressly allows, that the marquis was instructed to draw some forces from Ireland for the service of Scotland. And, on the authority of Mr. Cart, he refers to an act of parliament, anno 1617, 1618, Car. II. in which the king, speaking of his letter to the duke of Ormond, says, "It was only to declare, that the marquis of Antrim was employed in Ireland to procure what forces he could from thence, to be transported into Scotland for his late majesty's service, under the late marquis of Montrose." Whoever reads king Charles II.'s letter which is given at full length in Ludlow's "Truth brought to light," a pamphlet printed in 1693, in answer to Dr. Hollingworth, will not think the limitation of his majesty's meaning, here offered, consistent with the strain and tenor of that letter, which refers to the Irish rebellion in the most general terms, as well as speaks of " drawing some forces from the Irish for the service of Scotland;" and alludes to various other actings of the marquis with the Irish confederates. It was proved, on the trial of the marquis's claim to be included in the act of indemnity, that he was to have had a hand in surprising the castle of Dublin, in 1641; and seven other charges were substantiated against him. After a trial of seven hours, the king's letter being opened and read in court, Rainford, one of the commissioners, said, that the king's letter on his behalf was evidence without exception ;" and thereupon he was declared an innocent Papist. Truth brought to Light, p. 15. The plea of this letter, was the instructions given to the marquis by Charles I. and, as Mr. Neal's quotation states, it applied to every transaction with the Irish Catholics. Ludlow avers it as a well-known fact, that the marquis had his head and hands deeply and early engaged in the bloody work of the rebellion, and was amongst the first in it. Memoirs, 4to, p. 423, edition of 1771. As to the act of parliament, to which Mr. Cart refers, it is not to be found in the statutes at large, 4to, nor in Pickering's statutes.-ED.

+ Ludlow's Memoirs, vol 3. p. 353.

war.

I have been more particular in accounting for this insurrection, because whoever were the authors of it, they are, in the judgment of lord Clarendon, answerable for all the calamities of the civil "It was Ireland (says his lordship*) that drew the first blood. If they had not at that time rebelled, and in that manner, it is very probable all the miseries which afterward befel the king and his dominions, had been prevented." At whose door then the guilt of all this blood must be laid, I freely leave with the reader.

Upon the first news of the Irish massacre the commons turned themselves into a committee of the whole house, and came to the following resolutions, "that all Roman Catholics of quality in in the several counties of England be secured, and that all Papists depart from London to their respective places of abode in the country; that the house of lords be desired to join with the commons in a petition for dissolving the convent of Capuchins, and sending them out of the kingdom; that the foreign ambassadors be desired to deliver up such priests of the king's subjects as are in their houses; that a list be brought in of the queen's servants; and that a proclamation be issued out for all strangers that are not Protestants, to give an account of their names and places of abode, or depart the kingdom." They also despatched a messenger to the king, beseeching him to concur with them in securing the nation against any further attempts of the Papists; and not to employ any in his councils who were favourers of Popery, superstition, or innovation in religion. They voted 200,000l. to be borrowed immediately for the service of Ireland, and appointed the train-bands of Westminster to guard them from the insolence and affronts of vagrant soldiers about the court, and to secure them from other designs which they had reason to suspect. The lords ordered all Romish recusants to remove out of the inns of court and chancery. The commons ordered the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to be tendered to all Irish gentlemen within those courts; "for it now appears (says Mr. Pym) that the religion of the Papists is incompatible with any other religion, it is destructive to all others, and will endure nothing that opposes There are other religions that are not right, but not so destructive as Popery, for the principles of Popery are subversive of all states and persons that oppose it †."

it.

When the king returned from Scotland the latter end of November, and had been received with the acclamations of the citizens of London ‡, he was prevailed with by the queen and her faction to check the proceedings of the two houses, since the Scots were easy, and the hearts of the English nation seemed to be with him; his majesty had recommended the suppressing the Irish rebellion to the Scots representatives, and by letter had committed the care of it also to the English parliament; whereupon the + Nalson's Collection, vol. 2. p. 620. Ibid. p. 675, &c.

* Vol. 1. p. 299.

house of commons, in the king's absence, authorised the earl of Leicester, by an ordinance of their own, to raise forces, and the lord-high-admiral to provide shipping for their transportation from Chester, and other ports; but when the king came to Whitehall he seemed so unwilling to act against the Papists, that the parliament were afraid of sending Protestant soldiers out of the kingdom, lest his majesty should take advantage of their absence, and break up the constitution*; for he had already commanded away the parliament's guard, telling them they had nothing to fear from the Papists, and that their jealousies of plots and massacres were imaginary t. He pardoned seven Popish priests who were under sentence of condemnation, contrary to the petition of the house of commons. He turned out the earl of Leicester, lordlieutenant of Ireland, and sir William Parsons, one of the most active Protestant justices in that kingdom. He intercepted the parliamentary supplies in their way to Chester, and received a deputation from the Irish Catholics with greater ceremony and respect than from his Protestant subjects. Nor could his majesty be prevailed with to issue out a proclamation declaring the Irish, rebels, till the beginning of January, and even then only forty copies were printed, and not one to be dispersed till farther orders. Indeed, the king proclaimed a monthly fast, and offered to raise an army of English for the relief of Ireland, which the commons declined; and instead thereof appointed a committee to treat for ten thousand Scots, which the house of lords, by direction from the king, put a stop to§; so that between both, the relief of Ireland was neglected. The king would have persuaded the parliament to send over ten thousand English, that they might find it more difficult to raise forces in case of a breach with him; but the commons prevailed with the Scots to offer ten thousand of their nation, that they might not be obliged to leave themselves naked and defenceless in so critical a juncture.

Upon the whole it seems to me, that this barbarous insurrection and massacre was formed either here or in Ireland, to distress the parliament, after the failure of the design of doing it by the English army. The king seems to have been willingly ignorant||

* Rapin, vol. 2. p. 386, 387, folio.

+ Ibid. p. 388, folio. Nalson, vol. 2, p. 400.684.

Rapin, vol. 2. p. 401, folio edition.

§ "The king (says Dr. Grey) was not concerned in it, as appears from Rapin, the author he (i. e. Mr. Neal) refers to." The doctor then relates, in Rapin's words, the three questions on this point, debated by the lords. In which statement there is, it is true, an entire silence about the king's interference. But the doctor had overlooked the preceding paragraph, which establishes Mr. Neal's assertion; in which Rapin says, "the king had found means to gain the peers."

-ED.

"This (says Bishop Warburton) is a villanous accusation, destitute of all proof and likelihood."—His lordship might have spared some of his warmth and bitterness. For if it be an accusation, it comes forward as a conclusion arising from the facts and authorities stated in the preceding pages. It is properly the opinion of the author, and the reader will judge how far it justly flows from the evidence laid before him.-ED.