AMongst some Books I lately re­ceived from my Stationer I had the Earl of Castlehaven's Memoirs.

I little expected, after 28 years, to have seen any thing of his Lordship's Proceedings in Ireland, in taking part with the Rebels, before the Cessation 1643. considering his, and his Ancestors obligations to the Crown of England. Nor am I convinced why (at this time) it should come forth, unless thereby its [Page 2] hoped that some Reflections may be fixed on the Ministers then to exte­nuate the general Insurrection, when as we know no Artifice is more usual than to clamour the People with Ca­lumnies on the State, whilest others alarm them to Rebellion. I rather ex­pected, since he imbarqued in that bu­siness ( in behalf of which his His Majesties Message to the Parl. 14. Feb. 1641. late Majesties heart so often bled,) that the Act of Ob­livion should have sealed up those Encounters: especially since his Majesty had been prevailed with by the intercession of his Friends in Parlia­ment, to repair the Breaches Time and Misfortune had made upon so ancient and honourable a Family as his Lord­ships. But since he hath published his Memoirs of his Engagements and Car­riage in the Wars of Ireland, as some­thing in them new, which Castleh. Ep. to the K. if his Majesties time may permit him to read, contain neither Lie nor Mistake. I conceive him so inge­nuous (having admitted others to mind [Page 3] him of some Passages which The Col. Let­ter to him. possibly may be more in their knowledge than his Lordships,) He will not interpret it amiss, to be in­formed of some concerns nearer the Truth.

It is not my intention to arraign what (as a Person of Honour and good Conduct) he managed in that War, having his Lordships Test for what he affirms. But that I may take his Me­moirs as they stand, he is pleased to write, ( Sect. 1. p. 3.) That it may seem a wonder how he came to engage with the Irish, being a Peer of England, and an English man both by Birth and De­scent, not speaking a word of their Lan­guage, and having little in their King­dom. Whereas the Wonder easily un­riddles it self, his Lordship being a strong Asserter of the Romish Persua­sion, to advance which, no Artifice or Attempt, hath ever been condem­ned (by the Father of it) as Disloyal or Inhumane.

And as to his Lordships coming into [Page 4] Ireland not long before the Rebellion' ( P. 5.) I cannot so far shrive his Con­science, as not to allow what he af­firms, That it was to settle his Affairs there, as he had done in England, ere he ventured further on the Trade of War, to which his Genius led him: Yet I find the Parliament (to whom the King had left the Affairs of Ireland) complain in an Order 29 of Jan. 1641. ‘That immediately before, and du­ring the barbarous and bloudy Re­bellion, many having Estates in En­gland, went thither,’ amongst whom his Lordship was one especially taken notice of (in a Declaration of the Com­mons concerning the Rise of the Re­bellion 25 of July 1643.) having sate as a Peer in Parliament in England immediately before the Irish Rebellion; at which time Mr. Porter, Sir Basil Brook (the Queens Treasurer) Mr. An­drew Brown, and others went over. And though his Lordships bare repair­ing thither may be more favourably censured, than to conclude, he re­solved [Page 5] to center in that Conspiracy; yet since he afterwards espoused that Quar­rel, when many (who having obser­ved the bloudy Effects thereof) were ashamed (at least prudently deterred) to own its Progress, all cannot acquit him of that Taint, for that as an Ho­nourable Person in his Letter from the Country writes, ( P. 50.) ‘That he could not have been engaged in that Conspiracy unless he had been resol­ved in the Justice of their Cause from the beginning;’ though he is put in mind (by the Letter he inserts) ( P. 5.) That immediately upon the breaking forth of the Rebellion in the North, he (being in Munster) repaired to the Lords Justices, and (as his Ance­stors) offered to serve against the Re­bels, but was told his Religion was an Obstacle. Nor can I say but the State returned him this Answer, and how could they well say less? when it was apparent that it was a Popish Conspi­racy, and those of that Profession were generally engaged in that Defection. [Page 6] Though he must give me leave to put him in mind that the Lords Justices (how ill soever his Party would pre­sent them to the World) were so far from owning a publick Jealousie of all of his Lordships persuasion, that it is well known they put Arms into the hands of divers Noblemen of the Pale of that Religion, who, (as his Lordship) made Professions to his Majesties Service, and desired the same. Nor was this Concession of the Lords Justices dis­approved by the Parliament in England, they also gran­ted See the Kings Reply for Li­cences for Ireland. Husb. Col. p. 72. Commissions of Go­vernment, as likewise of Martial Law to several of the same Persuasion, not in the Pale onely, but in other parts of the Kingdom; inserting a Power ‘to spare or destroy the Rebels according to their discretion;’ hoping those of the Pale might prove good Instruments to oppose the threatning Incursions of the Northern Rebels: whilest they a few days after deserted their Houses, [Page 7] and openly declared themselves in a­ctual Rebellion; as did several of the principal Towns, Wexford, Waterford, Dundalk, Trym, and others, to whom the State had sent Arms and Commis­sions of Trust. And this not through the least force put on them by the State: No, they yielded to whatsoever they thought might argue an assu­rance of them, but they of the Pale centered with the other through their Natural Inclination, and (as we may believe from the Lords Mac-Guire, Mac-Mahon, Mac-Arts, and others Confes­sions) a designed Insurrection through the whole Kingdom of the Popish Persuasion, cherished by an inveterate detestation of the English, what pre­text soever else his Lordship (in an Appendix) promises We shall find the true Original Causes of the late Rebel­lion throughly discovered: A Piece speedily desired, that the Fallacy he presumes to cast before the King might be detected. So that something more than ordinary (though the Particulars [Page 8] be lost with the time) was either known or suspected (by the State) of his Lordship, which at that time (were it onely abundance of Caution) might well excuse the L. Justices Reply to him, ( P. 6.) As their not furnishing him with money, who by the sudden­ness of that Rebellion, were reduced to an extreme Exigence. Nor by the sequel doth it appear that his Lordship had any need of their Supply, had he real­ly intended a remove for England: When for so many Months after he could freely and splendidly entertain the Dutchess of Buckingham and the Earl of Antrim at Maidenstown. As to their denying him a Pass for England, ( P. 6.) which afterwards his Brother's Letter tells him the King (being to that end petition'd at York) denied, re­ferring him to the Parliament, who without the King, could do nothing. So that the Lords Justices advice to make fair Weather at home, was not justly to be blamed; nor (considering the circumstances they were then un­der) [Page 9] was his Resentment thereof so often to have been angerly exprest as a villainous proceeding against him. (P. 14.) An Expression unfit for such, (and not otherwise than with scorn to be resented) on whom his Majesty had impressed his Authority.

What his Lordship did at home, besides spending his Provision on the Noble and Excellent Company he had there, the Dutchess of Buck­ingham and Earl of Antrim (who afterwards sate Chairman at Kilkenny, ‘and if he had not been supported by his Majesties Mercy, The Addit. Act of Sect. f. 116. had never been able to have supported himself by his own Innocence)’ I never had an itch to enquire; but I find (in the States Letter to the Lord Lieutenant, December 14. 1641.) that on the tenth of the same, he pre­sented (at the Council-Board) ‘the Oath of the Confederate Roman Catholicks of Ireland,’ which had been tendred to him; but (as he then [Page 10] said) he refused to swear to, and it was not then justified to the contrary, though his intent of producing it there, was suspected to be in favour of them, that their proceedings might be the easier palliated, though the Oath was so weav'd, as Disloyalty and Con­tradiction spun every thred. Yet hi­therto the State was loath to cherish any Heats against his Lordship, leaving him to return to his house at Maidens­town, (P. 11.) where he continued quiet 5 or 6 Months, till having some disturbance by a Rabble driving away part of his stock (which was soon re­covered,) he sent his Brother to Dublin, and with him all the poor English he had thitherto protected, ( P. 7) part of which, near Rathcool, the Rebels barbarous­ly killed; the others that escaped (through Dungan's Rescue) being sore­ly wounded, and as it was suspected, either through the Treachery of their Convoy, or a laid Design; as a Boy serving his Lordship, sometime after betrayed a Sadler, Servant to the Earl [Page 11] of Antrim. Upon which, or other suggestions (as that he had prepared great Entertainment for the L. Mount­garret, had he defeated the King's Forces,) his Lordship was indicted of High Treason, (the most publick way of accusing, and an Act rather of the Grand Jury than the State) upon which he came to Dublin. ( P. 9.) The State (at the Mercy of his Brother) however being taxed with clandestine Proceed­ings, for not calling him before the Council e're that he was committed to Sheriff Woodcock's house. (P. 10.) Whereas this was done, that a severer course might not be commenced a­gainst him, till the matter might have been favourably heard, business at that time (thronging on the State) not ad­mitting a speedy Release: Grains and Scruples are not to be stuck at when a State is on its Ruine. And that his Lordship might have very well been sensible of, for that the Lieutenant General let him live quietly till then; whereas in Justice he might have [Page 12] brought him Prisoner to Dublin, who could find sufficient force to rescue his own People and Cattle, but none to assist the King's Lieut. General, when he fought (near his house) the Battel of Kilrush. Yet this Lord being im­patient of his Commitment, and su­specting (for which there was no proof) that he should be ordered to the Castle, he made an escape the 27. of September 1642. being (as Sir James Ware hath re­gistred Wares MSs. 1642. it) committed for High Treason. The Earl of Strafford's Case coming fresh to his thoughts, That Innocency was a scurvy Plea in an Angry Time; (P. 15.) whereas the Earl of Strafford's Case was much dif­ferent from his. His Majesty ‘be­ing never convinced of any such Cri­minousness in him, as willingly to expose his life to the stroke of Justice and Malice of his Enemies.’ But the cause which his Lordship solemnly owned, his Majesty condemned with the greatest indignation imaginable, [Page 13] expressing in his Eicon Basil. That the Sea of Bloud which hath in Ireland been cruelly and barbarously shed, is enough to drown any man in eternal, both Infamy and Misery, whom God shall find the malicious Author or In­stigator of its effusion. And here it is not to be passed over (since he hath mentioned this noble Earl) that some of those who were Witnesses against him at his Trial, appeared afterwards to be leading men in the Rebellion the Earl of Castlehaven joined in, and ma­ny more of that Faction, whose kind­ness (in admitting his Lordship) he says he must never forget, being then Members of Parliament in Ireland, had there voted him a Traitor, before his hearing in Westminster Hall. Fur­ther the Earl of Castlehaven says, That the States Officers and Souldiers not taking care enough to distinguish be­tween Rebels and Subjects, killing ma­ny, promiscuously forced him to take up Arms. Considering besides, That the whole Nation had took up Arms for [Page 14] their own Defence, particularly the Lords of the Pale, who yet (at the same time) desired the Justices (be sure weight enough be laid on them) to send their Petition to the King, which was refused, and (as a further discourage­ment) Sir John Read (who was pre­vailed with to carry their Remonstrance to the King, with their Grievances, not concealing his Message) was put to the Rack for his good will.

In brief his Lordship charges his si­ding with the Rebels ( whether incli­ned thereto in Anger or Revenge. P. 21.) on these Motives.

• 1. To his not being received by the State.
• 2. To his being clandestinely in­dicted of High Treason.
• 3. To the States Officers and Soul­diers promiscuous killing Rebels and Subjects.
• 4. To the States refusal to send the Rebels Petition to the King.
• 5. To the Racking of Sir John Read, entrusted with the Rebels [Page 15] Remonstrance of Grievances to the King.

Upon consideration of all which, He conceived there was no safety but in So Catiline, Mihi indies magis animus accenditur, cum considero quae conditio vitae futura sit nisi nosmetipsos vindicemus in Libertatem. Salust. p. 14. Arms. (P. 17.)

The two first of these being an­swered in the third and fourth Para­graphs, we reply as to the third, touching the promiscuous killing of Re­bels and Subjects. That the Conspi­racy was so general, and there had been such unheard of Villanies (not in any Age before) committed by the Irish e're his Majesties Forces could be imbodied, to assert his Power; That the Infection seemed to have polluted the whole Kingdom, so as an enraged Army, justly incensed by many (who at first had suffered by the Rebels) could hardly distinguish betwixt the Nocent and Innocent. As at Santry Decemb. 5. 1641. (strongly insisted on by Nettervile) the Action there be­ing [Page 16] not commenced till divers of the Pale, many in Connaught, and all the Irish Inhabitants of Ulster had confe­derated, and committed open rebel­lious acts and cruelties against his Ma­jesties Protestant Subjects. Nor was this which they call Murther of inno­cent Husbandmen, any other than (upon Examination) found to be Ju­stice on Rebels from whom the active Rebels had daily relief, amongst which there were two Protestants. The Sword once drawn, Legal Pleas are seldom heard, though I think his Lord­ship can hardly produce one Example where the State (being seasonably in­formed) did not (as far as the time permitted) exert their Interest to ac­quit the Innocent. The Discipline too of his Majesties Army was so well known, under the Conduct of so ho­nourable a Person (no enemy to them further than their Disloyalty justly en­forced him) and such worthy Officers, as few (who knew' them) will ever give credit to a report that shall blast [Page 17] them in that particular. Besides, it must be considered, that what cruel acts soever were done beyond the course of ordinary Justice, the Obje­ctors must be put in mind that they were primi in culpa; and that the bloud in Drogheda and elsewhere shed in Ireland, lies at their Doors; for had they not raised and continued the Rebellion through his Lordships access (and other Officers from abroad) to their Party, in all probability a Sword to this day had not been drawn (at least continued) in that Kingdom; and the assurance of what Force that united Kingdom would▪ have contri­buted to his Majesty, might have pre­vented all the effusion of bloud in England. Nay, so tender was the State of giving the least offence to any that under that pretence might skreen their Villany, as some exceptions be­ing taken by divers Lords and Gentle­men of the Pale, as if they should be involved in these words, ‘That some evil affected Irish Papists had con­spired. [Page 18] &c.’ The Lords Justices and Council (to shew they intended thereby ‘onely such of the old mere Irish in the Province of Ulster, as were then Actors in that Treason, and others who adhered to them)’ published the 29. of October, 1641. their sense thereof; which these dis­contented Gentlemen seemed then to be satisfied with. Yet their hearts being bound up with the Rebels, it was not long before they suffered (or rather caused) the Recruit going for Drogheda the 29. of November, to be defeated at Gellingston Bridge, and within a few days after, the Lord Gormanston (with many more of the Lords and prime Gentry of the Pale) struck up an agreement with the Rebels at the Hill of Crofty, meeting afterwards at the Hill of Tarragh, where they produced an Answer to the Lords Justices Summons Decemb. 3. ‘to consult with them for the safe­ty of the Kingdom;’ and that before ever the Northern Rebels (as they af­terwards [Page 19] alledged) forced them to a compliance, for want of a sufficient sup­ply from the State to resist them; pre­tending they had no security for their safety. Which the L. Justices and Counc. Dec. 13. gave them assurance of, ‘upon the Word of the State, safely to repair thither without danger of any trou­ble or stay whatsoever,’ positively then affirming, ‘that the Lords Justi­ces and Council did never hear Sir Charles Coot’ (whom they sugge­sted to have devised a general Massa­cre upon those of their Religion) ‘ever to have counselled so impious or de­testable a thing.’ And to the same intent, advised the 9. of December, ‘ Luke Nettervile Esq and others, met at Swords, immediately to separate.’ However they feigned several fears, which the State descended to clear, though to no purpose; so as the Tor­rent of the Pale ran still to make up that Deluge. Yet that the clearness of the States Intentions might further appear to wean all from any appre­hensions [Page 20] of suspicion of them, the Lords Justices at that time imbraced the seeming Application of the E. of Westmeath, Sir Morgan Cavenagh's feigned Protestations, and permitted Sir Luke Fitz Gerald, Robert Harpool Esquire, and others, (against whom they had more than ordinary proofs of their taking part with the first Con­spirators) peaceably to return to their habitations; as they did James War­ren, and Friar Paul Oneil (both exami­ned at the Council Board) and were not without reason suspected of the Rebels Party; which Indul­gence they soon improved to the de­fiance of the State, which (of 60 per­sons apprehended as justly suspected to be in the Plot) caused onely one of Fermanagh to suffer death, whom the Lord Mac-guire confessed to be privy to the Plot.

Fourthly, As to the keeping back of Petitions from the King, by which his Lordship will have it, That the whole Nation took up Arms for their defence; [Page 21] he must be put in mind (he taking plea­sure to be minded of what is more in others knowledge than his,) that in the beginning of the Rebellion, the Irish had never less reason to complain that their Grievances were not presented; For the Commissioners of Parliament of Ireland, (*by whom the The King's Works, Vol. 2. p. 569. Rebellion was hatch'd) who had attended his Majesty with a Collection of all Grie­vances, were returned with such high and unexpected condescensions, and those especially relating to the Roman Catholicks, that it was but in August 1641. (being the last Sessions) thought that the next Sessions of Parliament would be principally to return his Ma­jesty their acknowledgment, that (by taking off all Discriminations and In­capacities) he had laid a most sure foundation of Unity and Peace a­mongst his Subjects. Though there is a new Piece come forth, enti­tuled, A short View of the late Troubles in England, which would abuse [Page 22] the World, as if the Committee from the Parliament of Ireland, after nine months attendance, were, at his Maje­sties going for Scotland, referred to the Parliament of England, and afterwards constrained to return without any re­dress. Besides, the Lords Justices and Council did not conceal or debar any thing that ever came to them from the Confederates, though warrantably they might have done it; some things being so peremptory, that it was not for them to admit of (being the Pre­sentative of his Majesty) and others of that ill consequence to the injured Pro­testants as (without a Comment) could not (with their trust) be presen­ted to his Majesty. All or most of which Addresses (however accompa­nied with undutiful and irreverend ex­pressions or overtures) were with the first opportunity presented to his Ma­jesties view or knowledge. About the 6. of November 1641. the Rebels of the County of Cavan sent their pre­sumptuous Propositions to the Lords [Page 23] Justices and Council, which with their Answer, they forthwith certified to the L. Lieutenant the E. of Leicester, to whom (by his Majesties express Com­mand) the Dispatches relating to Ire­land, were to be directed. About the tenth of the same Month the Longford Letter to the Lord Dillon of Costiloe, full of pretended Grievances and unrea­sonable Demands, as freedom of Reli­gion, a Repeal of all Laws made to the contrary, and the like; was pre­sented to the State in behalf of the Rebels of Longford; which having an answerable return, his Lordship and the Lord Taaff, went into England, promoting that which afterwards centered in a Cessation. About the midst of December 1641. Sir Thomas Carey and Dr. Cale a Sorbonist, offered to the Council Board several Proposi­tions from the Rebels, presuming (upon the straits that the State was brought to) that their insolent De­mands would not have been denied, which they were; but not without [Page 24] representing them to his Majesty. The 23. of December 1641. seven Lords of the Pale (who had declared by former Letters. ‘That they would stand on their Guard, after that they had joined with the Northern Re­bels, in the Siege of Drogheda’) sent Letters to the Lords Justices, to which (though without prejudice to his Majesties Honour) they could not answer, yet they certified them to the Lord Lieutenant. And about the 16. of March 1641. there was an O­verture made to the Lords Justices by a Letter to the Earl of Castlehaven, (who by his Memoirs gives us occa­sion to reflect on these things) in the name of the United Lords of the Pale, signed by Gormanston, Netter­vile and Slane, for a Cessation of Arms; after that (by his Majesties Forces transmitted out of England, and 10000 compleat fresh men in Ulster, besides the Scotch ten Regiments then in the Field) the Irish were beaten from Drogheda by Sir Henry Tichborn; [Page 25] and that his [...]ies Army was full Master of the Field in all parts of the Pale. To which the Lords Justices and Council thought not fit to hear­ken; yet certified it to the Lord Lieu­tenant, and did not as some The Brief Narrative. maliciously suggest upon this Cause merely make his Lordship Prisoner. Such another Paper from the Lord Mountgarret the 23. of March 1642. came to the Earl of Ormond, Lieutenant General of his Majesties Army, containing Grievan­ces done in England as well as Ireland, to shew to the Lords Justices, which lay not in their power to redress; which was also sent to the Lord Lieu­tenant to be shewn to his Majesty. And in August the Confederates sent to the Lieutenant General a Peti­tion directed to his Majesty, which his Lordship presented to the Lords Justices, who forthwith sent it to his Majesties Principal Secretary; and thereupon a Commission was sent to the Marquess of Ormond ‘to meet and [Page 26] hear what the Rebels could say or propound for themselves;’ by Vir­tue of which, his Majesties Commis­sioners received the Rebels Remon­strance at Trym, March 17. 1642. A mere Rhapsody of scandalous Crimi­nations upon the Government, and a justification of their Rebellion; since (1644.) fully answered by a Person then at the Helm, in a Book entituled, ‘ The false and scandalous Remon­strance of the Inhumane and bloudy Rebels of Ireland,’ worthy the Earl of Castlehaven's further Information. This Remonstrance, at length, brought forth a Cessation, in hope (as David Routh, titular Bishop of Ossory insinua­ted) that it would at length prove the ruine of Heresie, and the firmer esta­blishment of the Catholick Faith and Interest. And in truth, whatsoever pretension there was for it, it proved a snare to the English, and no advan­tage to his Majesty. After which, their Agents were heard by his Maje­sty in Oxford, who at their depar­ture [Page 27] (amongst many excellent admo­nitions, worthy so intelligent a Prince) were advised, ‘That if they made haste to assist to suppress the English Rebellion, they might confidently believe he would never forget to whose Merit he owed his Preserva­tion and Restauration, and then it would be in his absolute power to vouchsafe such Graces to them as would not leave them disappointed of their just and full expectations.’ Words sufficiently August. By which it is apparent, that nothing that ever the Rebels pretended should come to his Majesties Ears, was obstructed by the Lords Justices or State: Notwith­standing his Lordship is somewhat po­sitive, that the Rebels Petitions (par­ticularly those of the Pale) were ne­ver sent to the King. Wherein he assumes the Bleeding Iphigenia's Lan­guage, ‘That the Irish to Decemb. 23. 1674. this day were never heard to speak for themselves,’ which (by what is before cited) is [Page 28] fully disproved. Though their Ad­dresses (I must again say) were bold Capitulations, rather than dutiful Sub­missions, or acknowledgments of their Guilts; which Father Peter Walsh (this Earls Ghostly Father, P. 127.) takes an especial notice of, with a Re­sentment worthy himself that (in the Loy. form. f. 672. Congrega­tion at Dublin 1666. admit­ted with an unusual Favour) not one moved for a general Petition to be ex­hibited to his Majesty, imploring his gracious Pardon; notwithstanding the Rebellion 1641. or the behaviour of the Clergy Regular or Secular at Wa­terford under the Nuncio, 1646. or at Jamestown 1650. even after the Nuncio's Departure; or that they fought against both Laws, and those who had not onely the Laws, but the King's special Commission, and brake both Cessations 1643, 1647. both Peaces, 1646, 1648. treated for a Foreign Protector, for the Alienation of the Crown, stood for [Page 29] Mac-Mahon's Book, ‘That an Irish Native might be chosen for their King.’ Yet that nothing on the States part (which might induce the Rebels to a submission) might be omitted, they published the 30. of October 1641. a Proclamation, ‘ten­dering his Majesties Grace to all se­duced Rebels,’ but none tendered themselves. And the first of Novem­ber following they set forth another Proclamation, drawn up by Mr. Plun­ket the Lawyer, (afterwards one of their Party) respecting those of the Pale, who lay next to the Northern Rebels, ‘that in 10 days they might submit,’ but they joined in the same Rebellion. And the 12. of the same, the Lords Justices and Council reprin­ted an Order of the Lords and Com­mons of the Parliament of England, whereby they had power ‘to bestow his Majesties gracious Pardon to all such as within a convenient time (to be declared by the Governours of that Kingdom) should return to [Page 30]their due obedience,’ which effected nothing on the Rebels. No more did his Majesties Gracious Proclamation of the first of January 1641. under his Royal Signature and Privy Signet, ‘commanding them to lay down Arms.’ And when the Parliament met the 16. of November 1641. and there was a necessity to prorogue it af­ter two days, ‘by reason of the pre­sent state and condition wherein the Kingdom stood.’ The Lords Justi­ces and Council were so careful, that no Jealousies or Pretence should arise thence, as if his Majesty would with­draw any of his Acts of Grace, that they, by his Majesties directions, did make known to the Parliament, ‘That his Majesty would not depart from any his former Favours promised to them for setling their Estates, to such as should remain faithful and loyal.’ Nay so desirous were the Lords Ju­stices and Council to draw off from that Combination the Lords and Gen­try of the Pale, that Feb. 8. 1641. when [Page 31] they set Prices on the Rebels heads (to which they were authorized,) they never named the Lords of the Pale, and but few of the Gentry a­mongst the Conspirators, though in an insolent and most prodigious manner they had acted with them. And when the Lords Justices imployed a Com­mittee of Parliament to them, they scornfully rejected them, tearing the Order of Parliament, and the Letter that accompanied them. Using no better the Lord Moore, and others ap­pointed to treat with them afterwards; Nor (at another time) some of their own Clergy, that if it had been possi­ble they might have won them to Obedience. Yet further, so desirous was the State to compose all difference betwixt them and the Rebels, that af­ter Sir Richard Barnewell and Patrick Barnewell Esq, both of the County of Meath, had joined with the Nor­thern Rebels, the State (upon their pretence, that if they might have a Commission to Parley with the Re­bels, [Page 32] they hoped to doe some good for the quiet of the Kingdom) granted them Commissions to that end; al­though it after appeared (by a very fri­volous and scornful return) that this was sought by them onely to gain some colour of security for their Rebellious complying with the Rebels, dealing thence most deceitfully in all things expected from the Lords Justices and Council. Could there be greater evi­dence than these of his Majesties Go­vernours inclination to Peace and Mer­cy? It is no wonder that the Con­federates, to effect their Empire, should make their way through any calumny they can defame the State withall; that palliating their own Treachery, they might colourably charge the State. Whereas the Irish were so far from being provoked by the State, that no less a testimony than the Word of that great, just and wise Prince, King Charles I. is extant to Posterity. ‘That he did extremely detest the odious Rebellion which [Page 33] the Recusants of Ireland had, with­out ground or colour, raised against him, his Crown and dignity.’ And as for the Lords Justices and most of the Councils being of the Parliaments Persuasion, it is an imputation so un­just, that the World may be defied to evidence wherein they further a­greed than to manage the War as it was left to the Parliament, taking their best measures from the King himself. And thus much I may add, that if exceptions were particularly taken against one of the Lords Justices, the Times being ticklish and apt (on misconstructions) to disgust some, the other (more than that he was his Collegue) was so far from being ex­cepted against, maugre whosoever hath the countenance to face his Ma­jesty with the contrary; that he was instituted again with Sir Henry Tich­born in the Government. Nor to this day did ever any, save some Bigot in Popery and Rebellion, blast his memo­ry or actions; unless being reduced [Page 34] to little, for being a perfect English­man, he may be taxed with too much credulity to trust to Acts and Promises, when he might have secu­red his Arrears out of the publick Re­venues, then at his disposure, and yet not have tripled his Estate to what it was before the Rebellion.

Fifthly, As to the Racking of Sir John Read: It doth not appear by whose Order it was done; nor con­sequently who was obliged to answer this Objection. But it is well known the said Read faltered much in the pretence of his business. Nor is it a thing to be wondered at, that one, su­spicious, and a Stranger, should be strictly examined in a time of general Conspiracy, the course being often u­sed for Discovery, though not for Evi­dence. But the Lord Castlehaven puts us in mind, ( P. 12.) He was his Majesties sworn Servant, a Stranger to the Country, unengaged, and an Eye­witness of the Remonstrants Proceedings: That he was his Majesties sworn Ser­vant, [Page 35] may be likely by the Impost he had upon Butter, procured for him from the King by some chief men of the Society ‘as a L'Estr. Hist. C. 1. f. 182. Reward for his detestable Service in perverting a Minister and his Family to the Popish Reli­gion;’ in whose house in Long-Acre the Jesuits Plot (discovered by Andreas ab Habernfield, a Nobleman of Bohe­mia) was contrived against the King and Kingdoms. By Nation he was a Scot, in Office a Secular Jesuite, Lieu­tenant Colonel to Sir Henry Bruce a Papist, in the Earl of Strafford's new raised Army of 8000 in Ireland, and (as his Lordship says) happily an Eye­witness of the Remonstrants Proceedings, therefore the more to be suspe­cted being like to palliate that to the King, which he was privy to in so treacherous a manner. But we can­not allow that he was unengaged, for that (as we have shewn) he was for­merly interessed in an abominable Plot, and we never heard that he de­tested [Page 36] it since, and was of the same Faith with the Conspira­tors, a So termed in the Im­peachment against Fa. Philips, Straff. Trial, f. 752. Substitute of the Je­suites. All that could be wrung from him (though his Lordship will have it, that he carried a Remon­strance to the King to beg his pardon for what the Confederates had done) was that he had a Petition from a few particular persons about their own concern, not one word of a Remonstrance of Grievances. So as hence it is clear, the State ought not to be taxed for keeping back any Pe­titions from the King. Neither could that, or his Lordships other pretences be any just motive to desert the State. It being more rational to have adhered to the King's Justice than (in defiance thereof) to fly to his declared Ene­mies.

But the Earl of Castlehaven having taken his way towards the Mountains of Wickloe, he cared little for the Justi­ces; that is, for his Majesties Autho­rity. [Page 37] Nor was it a wonder, he inten­ding to associate himself with those who had renounced God and the King; and so hastning to Kilkenny in two or three days he joined with the Supreme Council of the Confederate Ca­tholicks, entering into their Oath of As­sociation, by which all were bound to obey them, being persuaded thereto through the Love the Country bore him, and his Relation, in reference to his three Sisters married amongst them. Notwithstanding his Majesties Procla­mation Jan. 1. 1641. Declaring ‘All adhering to those leud and wicked persons then in Rebellion in his King­dom of Ireland, to be Rebels and Traitors against his Royal Person, and Enemies to his Royal Crown of England and Ireland; Ordering them to be prosecuted with Fire and Sword, as Persons who (by their high Dis­loyalty against him their lawful and undoubted King and Sovereign) had made themselves unworthy of any Mercy or Favour.’ And notwith­standing [Page 38] his late Majesties and his Par­liaments difference at that time, where­by the siding of such a Person of Qua­lity as his Lordship with the Rebels, brought in Question his Majesties countenancing of them, when in pro­secuting of them, the Royal Army every where succeeded to their cha­stizement. Yet in despite of this suc­cess, his Majesties Proclamations, and the horrid Examples of Cruelty the Rebels had committed on the English in that Kingdom in a time of setled Peace, without the least occasion given, as his Lordship words it in his Epistle to the Reader, He swore to the ha­zard of his Life and Estate, to assist▪ prosecute and maintain their Associa­tion. As to which Oath I shall not say much, it being elsewhere an­swered, and particularly well com­mented on in the Letter to the Earl of Castlehaven. (P. 50.) But I shall mind him of what the Act of Settle­ment (somewhat slightly spoken of by his Lordship) says, ‘That the Con­federates [Page 39] disowned and rejected his, and his Royal Father's undoubted Right to Ireland, even while they (in the outward form of their pro­ceedings) treacherously used their Majesties names; withall, impiously seeming by words and shews to swear unto that, which by the whole Series of their Deeds they denied.’ So as whatsoever satisfaction his Lord­ship took in the Model of their Go­vernment, or the pretence of their Oath (with which he was much plea­sed) this Act of Settlement must brand their Proceedings to Posterity. And since the E. of Castlehav. is so often plea­sed to bring in the Marq. of Ormond as consulting with him, I cannot omit how his Excellency takes notice in his Let­ter to Loughreogh, that notwithstanding the Confederates continual Decla­rations of Loyalty to his Majesty, and their sincerity and earnestness to advance his Service and Interest; they have continually by themselves and their known Instruments, practised the [Page 40] direct contrary. Which considered I cannot think his being one of the Su­preme Council, and General of the Horse under Preston (before the Ces­sation) could ever sublimate his Birth or Loyalty. For in imitation of Good the President is prefer'd, so is Imita­tion in Evil worse than the President, and that yet worse, where there is more time for Deliberation. His Lord­ship joined not with the Consederates in many Months after their Rebellion, when he saw a Design of setting up a Supreme Council, in opposition to his Majesties Authority; and was not ig­norant of the unpunish'd Villanies and Murthers by the Confederates.

And now being seated in the Su­preme Council, where he Walsh s. 115. made up the 25. with rela­tion to no Province, but the Kingdom in general; He observes:

First, That if a Letter came to them written in Irish, it would be wondered at, and hardly could one be found to read it. (P. 23.) Thereby implying [Page 41] that the Council was composed meer­ly of English, the worse to be liked, not having English spirits. But it is evident few or none (except himself) were other than excellently skill'd in the Irish. What else did Darcy, Mar­tin, the Lords Mountgarret and Mus­kery, the rest of the Commissioners, their Archbishops of Dublin and Tuam, with Tirlogh O Neil do there? Every of which (besides all their Covents, of which there were several in Kilkenny) used it frequently as their Native Speech, ordering several of their Acts, sometimes in Irish as well as English, to be printed at Waterford by Thomas Bowrke, Printer to the Confederate Catholicks of Ireland.

Secondly, That they were not in Case to bring to Justice those that be­gun the Rebellion. What Justice he means, is not for me to divine▪ but it is apparent that what those did, the Supreme Council countenanced; else they would not have moved by joint Council, lived on one publick Stock [Page 42] of Maintenance; nor had the victory of one been the victory of the other, which through the Scene was equally acknowledged.

Thirdly, His Lordship observes, that he never saw any of them esteemed or advanced. I know not what he esteems Advancement, but I find in the General Assembly Sir Phelim O Neil, Tirlogh O Neil, Philip Mac Mulmore O Relie, Hubert Fox, Pierce Fitz-Gerald▪ John Bellew, John Stanley, James Flemming, Roger Moor, &c. All men at first proscribed. And his Lord­ship tells us of Owen O Neil in the great and notable Assembly at Waterford. And were I well acquainted with the List of the Supreme Council, no que­stion but I might find some that ap­peared first in Rebellion brooding there, as others to the end entertained as Generals and supreme Officers in their Army; than which, what can be more of Esteem, or of greater Ad­vancement?

In the next place his Lordship takes [Page 43] notice of his good Fortune at Birrh, to begin with an action of charity. (P. 23. ) And certainly the effect was good, but whether from a principle of right Charity (which proceeds from a love of God to his Creatures) or Policy, I shall not busie my self to conclude. But as the Case stood, his Majesties Army was so prosperous in all parts, as had any less been done (than what he undertook) the return would have certainly been very severe; though when the best he can pretend to is summed up at Birrh, it must be con­cluded he was fortunate in Disloy­alty.

It is not my intention to speak any thing of his Lordships Encounters (they are under consideration) his P. 67. success in appeasing Mu­tinies, his P. 87. Counsels, and the P. 73, &c. Mercy he shewed to any, (with which he seems to be much satisfied;) no man doubts but his inbred Gallantry, Education and Experience ( P. 115. 119.) in this and [Page 44] other Wars (in which he had been long trained) led him to many At­tempts, all could not be unfortunate, Policy as well as Arms being often prevalent. Though for that ( P. 33.) wherein he succeeded against S ^r. Charles Vauafor, so many miscarriages fell out to impede Sir Charles's success, as the Encounter there rather resembled an Incursion than a Battel; and may pa­rallel the great Generals Parties at­tempt at Fienagh, where the Horse being sent over to skirmish, the En­glish mingling with them on a sudden, the Foot could do nothing, but through fear to kill their own, left the Bridge, Castle▪ and all free to the Enemy, ( P. 46.) And for those who were killed after quarter given at Cloghlea Castle, the Act was so much resented by Sir Charles as (had he come off at the Pass his Lordship encountered him) the manager of that unsaith­fulness had been no less severely pu­nished than those his Lordship men­tions ( P. 67.) who (contrary to the [Page 45] Conditions given by his Men to the Castle, he hath forgotten the name of) were sadly used by his Souldiers, rifled, wounded, slain.

Not long after this, it seems the Marquess of Ormond's Letter came by a Trumpeter to the Supreme Council then at Ross, who was quickly dis­patched with a slight Answer, (P. 35.) which the Earl of Castlehaven resent­ing (on consultation with others) re­turned from the Supreme Council a Letter to his Excellency, That they had summoned a General Assembly, in order to acknowledge the King's gra­cious favour in naming him his Commis­sioner to hear their Grievances and re­dress them. Which may be well looked on as a Reflection, how far he had deviated, and a respect to his Ex­cellency; whilest it cannot but lay a foul aspersion on the Supreme Coun­cil, who could be so insolent as to dis­patch a slight Answer to his Majesties Condescentions. Though the 8. of July afterwards his Lordship joining [Page 46] with the said Supreme Council▪ in re­turning the insufferable Answer they sent to the States See Hist: of the Execra­ble Irish Re­bell: f.128. Warrant for the Release of Synnot, can hardly be wiped off with a tolerable excuse.

This Letter soon after brought on a Treaty, which ended in the Cessation at Sigginstown, Septemb. 15. 1643. till which was effected, all Parties (writes his Lordship, P. 36. ) laboured to get into possession of what they could. This in the King's Party was very tolerable, but as to his (intending thereby to retain by force his Majesties Castles, to out his good Subjects of their Inheri­tance, and to keep up their usurped Authority) was looked on as very unjust and insolent. Especially when his Majesties Commission of Grace (for a Cessation of Arms) was in exe­cution, and his Prime Commissioner (near the place his Lordship besieged) imploying his Officers to procure ne­cessary Provisions for him. However the Earl of Castlehaven proceeded in [Page 47] that manner to a Cessation, which in truth proved but a Stratagem to draw the English Forces out of Ireland, that the Confederates might reign alone. After which his Lordship was chosen (by the General Assembly) Generalis­simo, (Owen O Neil being thereof dis­appointed) of which and his procee­ding afterwards (being that they see­med more to respect the King's Af­fairs) I shall not say much, his Me­moirs having spoken sufficiently. And as to the Lord Inchiquin's changing Parties, (which he often reflects on) his Lordship hath exprest his sense, though in justification of the Lord Inchiquin more need not be said than what he in his Letter to Colonel Jones June 23. 1649. there says for himself, ‘That he had changed the Party, not the Cause, bidding him make all things the same they were pretended, and he was the same he ever was.’ But to proceed, The Lord Castlehaven writes, (P. 54, 56. ) That he served not the Confederate Catholicks after [Page 48] the Service he had done them in his Expedition in Munster. Though he accounts it a kindness to have been consided in by them, whom we are able to make good, ‘did first assume, usurp and exercise the Power of Life and Death, make Peace and War, Levy and Coin Money, and did ma­ny other Acts of Sovereign Autho­rity;’ concluding in that excellent Model of Government (P. 22. ) he takes the freedom to commend, ‘That no Temporal Government or Juris­diction should be assumed, kept or exercised within that Kingdom, or any Province thereof, than what is approved or instituted by their Ge­neral Assembly.’ Considering which, how his Lordship should account it a kindness to be entertained by such a Consederacy, being a Peer of England, and descended thence from an ancient Stock of Worth and Honour, I must confess I have not yet arrived at that Morality to understand it such. Though to complete this Government the Po­pish [Page 49] Lawyers were principal Instru­ments, making use of their Learning and Skill for subversion of Government and good Order, seasonably observed by the Person of Honour in his Letter to the E. of Castlehaven, and may (I hope) for the future be an item in the States admittance of such to the Bar. And his Lordship must pardon the shrewd Memory of the▪ English, if they call to mind how (in so bloudy a Cause) he could join with the Confederates against such detestations of that Rebel­lion, as his late Majesty signified al­most in every Declaration and Mes­sage; and is (in his present Majesties Declaration Novemb. 5.) remembred ‘as a hainous Rebellion, and unna­tural Insurrection.’ Which since the Receipt of the Letter from the Person of Honour, the Earl of Castlehaven is convinced, or (at least is content) to acknowledge in his Epistle to the Rea­der (added since he published his Me­moirs) that it was a Rebellion all the Water of the Sea cannot wash off that [Page 50] Nation. But to help that, his Lord­ship is acquainted (in the Col. Letter P. 10.) That he was ordered to go to him, and use his endeavours to persuade him to hasten a Peace, for which (from the beginning of the War▪) his Lordship had always laboured: with respect doubt­less to his Oath of Association, by which he was obliged not directly nor indirectly to do any Act prejudi­cial to the Cause he had undertook to maintain, ( viz.) the Exercise of the Roman Catholick Faith and Reli­gion, &c. throughout the Kingdom, and all that should engage therein. An Oath absolutely destructive to the English and their Interest. Certainly there is not any thing that bespeaks a Christian more than a Mind conciled to Truth and Union. But how those ends should meet in the Peace he de­signed, was very unlikely, consider­ing his Majesties Concessions to the Ad­venturers, the inestimable loss the En­glish Protestants had suffered, and the Enquiry there ought to have been for [Page 51] the innocent Bloud poured forth like Water, in Ireland; the least of which never came under consideration. In as much as it is notably observed by the Person of Honour, ( P. 58.) ‘That the Irish did the English more hurt, and advantaged themselves more by the Cessation and two first Peaces, than ever they did or could do by open Force after the first Massacre;’ no­thing (writes Colonel Jones in his Letter to the Marquess of Ormond, March 31. 1649.) being to the En­glish Interest in that Kingdom more pernicious and apparently destructive. However (after near three years de­liberation) his Majesty was forced to the Peace 1646. ‘in assurance of a vi­gorous Assistance,’ as be­fore Act of Set­tlement, f. 10. he had been forced to the Cessation. And this not as Walsh's Re­ply to the Pers. of Q. P. 102. one will have it, who (to wipe off the Force his Majesty was put to) will have the Expression to be meant of those that erected that odious Court [Page 52] for taking away the life of the Excel­lent King Charles the First, and not of the Confederates; whereas the Cessa­tion 1643. and Peace 1646. (to which his Majesty says his Father was for­ced) was some years before that o­dious Court was ever thought on, or erected. Upon the breach of which Peace, the Earl of Castlehaven, ob­serves, ( P. 80.) That Story mentions not any one thing that had so fatal a con­sequence. The Articles of which be­ing notoriously violated (it is no matter, whether through the Nuncio's standing for Glamorgans Peace, trea­cherously obtained, and disallowed of by the King, or the Confederates pri­vate dissentions, both proceeding from animosities to the State.) But certain it is, ‘That all the Rebels Proceedings, and their Demands, however con­descended to, were insolent Treason.’ Besides the Lord Lieutenant was in­famously used, forced out of the King­dom, the Parliament then sitting at Dublin, Registring it to Posterity, [Page 53] ‘That the Irish were an insolent and, upon all advantages, a perfi­dious and bloudy Enemy.’ None accompanying his Excellency to Dub­lin in his hazardous Retreat thithes▪ when he and the Protestant Army were designed to be cut off by Owen O Neil, but the Earl of Castlehaven, (P. 75.) who, upon the Rebels block­ing up of Dublin, advised the Lord Lieutenant, ( P. 78.) rather to deliver it to the Parliament than the Rebels; for that when the King should have England he would have Ireland with it▪ which otherwise with the Nuncio and his Party might remain separate. A right Conclusion, and that (if it were his advice,) determined for the best. The Marqs Letter to Col. Jones, March 17▪ 1649. Sure it is, the Marquess of Ormond chose to capitu­late with Jones and others imployed by the two Hou­ses of Parliament, to deli­ver up Dublin into their hands, and other places, for that he could no lon­ger hold them, rather than to suffer [Page 54] them to be taken by an Army insti­gated by a Foreigner, to the danger of the whole Kingdom, and the de­struction of those he had so long pro­tected.

Afterwards I find his Lordship for some time retired, in the interim the Lord Inchiquin, the Lord Taaff, and other considerable Persons united. Upon which the Marquess of Ormond, at the request of the Confederates to the Queen and Prince, was wrought upon to reassume his Lieutenantship, with whom the E. of Castlehav▪ returned. The Lord Lieutenant entered upon this Imployment, when the King was in his greatest trouble; solemnly then concluding with all imaginable satis­faction to the Confederates, (though highly dishonourable to The Pers. of Hon. Letter. P. 27. the Crown of England, and destructive to the Pro­testants) the Peace of 1648. as before he had done the Peace of 1646. upon the frequent commands he had▪ not to let slip the means of [Page 55] setling that Kingdom fully under his Majesties obedience, which none could blame the King to make, upon diffi­cult Conditions, ‘That he might get such a United Power of his own Sub­jects, as might have been able (with Gods blessing) to have prevented that infamous and horrid Parricide which ensued.’ Though generous souls would rather have adventured all In­terests, than to have enhaunced their price on his Majesties necessities. But to come to the Peace, which the Con­federates (as his Lordship writes, P. 81.) confirmed and sealed with the bloud of more than 20000 of their best men, who lost their lives to maintain it, refusing in the mean while all Offers of Peace, and that even to the very last, from the Parliament.

It would take up more time than can be dispensed with (at present) to answer all that is here alledged.

I cannot say but as many as his Lordship affirms may be lost of the Irish; but that they fell in maintai­nance [Page 56] of this Peace, he must give me leave to doubt: In as much as Owen O Neil, the Earl of Antrim, and all the Northern Rebels refused to submit thereunto. Whose assistance to the other Party he cannot forget, and on what grounds they became Mercena­ry to Sir Charles Coot, no more than that no Towns that the Confederates had but Kilkenny would receive a Garrison, (P. 42.) And I am confident it is not out of his memory what the Clergy did at Jamestown, August 12. 1650. two days after that they had sent the Bishop of Dromore and Doctor Kelly ‘to persuade the Lord Lieutenant to leave the Kingdom, claiming there­by a Power Paramount to his Ma­jesties Authority,’ seconding their Excommunication with daily affronts, searching for him at Galway as for a Criminal person, their Clergy deny­ing to revoke their Excommunication, or to give assurance to him, or the Commissioners of Trust, for not at­tempting the like for the future. The [Page 57] Commissioners too of Trust (on whom much was reposed) being not all of like integrity. The Hist, of the Ir. Reb. f▪ 227, 233. The over balance of the Government being clearly in the Irish hands. Others whom some cried were Ormonists, being upon the matter Cyphers, as eminently appea­red in the Conference at The Hist. of the Ir. Reb. f. 233. Kilkenny, and yet 20000 lost their lives to maintain the Peace of 1648. This Noble Earls Memoirs furnish us with Actions of a notable and active Gene­ral, such as engaged his Souldiers in Judgment as well as Duty, (P. 136.) so as it may be expected with the Per­sian General, that he knew every Souldier by his name, and therefore might the more particularly affirm that 20000 fell in maintainance of the Peace of 1648. Yet who shall con­sider the Premises, and those who af­terwards submitted, will believe some unites are wanting to complete his Arithmetick. It may be he hath for­got [Page 58] that Captain Stafford (a Roman Catholick) yielded up the Castle of Wexford unto Cromwel, and entered himself into his Service, by which there ensued a notable effusion of bloud. And I see it is out of his mind▪ how a Party of the Confederates contracted with Ireton to give an Inlet for his Army into Limerick, by securing a Port for that purpose; when, at the same time, Hugh O Neil their Go­vernour opposed it. And though he hath not forgot how he hindered the General Assembly met at Loghreogh (upon the Marquess of Clanrickards entry on the Government) to agree with the Parliament; yet it cannot but be remembred, how unanimously they treated about it; so as what was prevented in the General, Parties af­terwards concluded severally. As May 12. 1652. all under the Earl of West­meath and the Lord Muskery (with whom there were several Lords, Knights and Persons of Quality com­prehended,) concluded an Agreement [Page 59] with the Parliament, though others dissented by reason that they could not have the like Conditions, not for any affection to the King's Cause, or in maintainance of the Peace, 1648. but by reason the bloudiness of their Crimes could never be absolved. This being the truth, how may it be said, That to the end they refused all Offers of Peace to the Parliament. Vind. Cath. p. 208. Non defuerunt (writes an Author of the Conspiracy) Catholici, proh pudor! maxime Paci & Ormonio hactenus adversarii, qui hisce Cromwellii legibus sese subderent. More we might say, but the time wasts. However we cannot draw off till we have somewhat considered his Lordships Charge, ( P. 81.) That since his Majesties happy Restauration, the Estates of such as maintained the Peace to the last, have been given away by the Acts of Settlement, some very few excepted. The bleeding Iphigenia (a leading man in the Supreme Council) first raised this Crie, ‘Wonders, writes [Page 60] he, being done since his Majesties Re­stauration, Rebels are made honest men, and honest men Rebels, by the King's Royal Pleasure.’ Excellent language! and that, it seems, which is the sense of the principal Romanists at this day; else the late unfortunate Viscount Stafford would not so readily (as he is charged by the eloquent and judicious Lord Chancellor) have ‘re­viled his Majesty for misplacing his Bounty, and rewarding none but Traitors and Rebels.’ Which a­greeing with what we have mentioned, may be reason sufficient to fix his Lordship a while here centering in Opinion. Not that I do deny, but hap­pily there were some (who after their first defection) faithfully performed what they promised (more out of In­terest than Duty,) and are not satis­fied to their expectations. Yet it is to be weighed, that the Peace was made with the Community, not par­ticular Persons, with the Collective Body of the Irish, not any dissenting [Page 61] Clergy: so as the Breach being almost General, Individuals could not have the benefit thereof. Nor hath the Act of Settlement declared any Estates forfeited for fighting for his Majesty, but for being guilty of the horridst Rebellion History ever recorded. Nei­ther doth his Majesty give any part of such forfeited Estates as a Reward to any for fighting against him, as if thereby ‘from being Rebels they were made honest men:’ But thereby he is graciously pleased to continue and confirm the Estates in the hands of his Protestant Subjects, formerly possessed thereof as Adventurers or Souldiers, redeeming their Errour of a Temporal Defection by arresting the first Op­portunity, (without consulting the success thereof, or capitulating with their Swords in their hands, as did the Irish) to hazard their lives for his Majesties Restauration: so as it seems somewhat harsh, to say, That the Estates of some few onely were exempted, when his Majesty in his gracious De­claration [Page 62] for the Settlement of Ire­land, November 30. 1660. saith, ‘We cannot doubt but that all who have merited from us, will con­fess that we have been so far from being failing to them, that we have as well provided for them, as after so great troubles and confusions, and after such blessed circumstan­ces of our Restauration, they could reasonably expect.’ And it is clear by the Act pursuant to that Decla­ration, that the most eminent and considerable Persons (even such as soon after those who began the Re­bellion in the North) who took up Arms, summoned, by the Intrusion of the Clergy, a general Congregation, they by a packed Party of bloudy Pa­pists in Rebellion and Confederacy, a General Assembly, those a Supreme Council concurring with the malice and hatred of the former, who neces­sitated his Majesty to a Cessation, fetch'd in the Nuncio, abjured both Peaces, confederated with the Clergy, [Page 63] kept the Lord Lieutenant out of the principal Towns, and twice forced him out of the Kingdom, who was their Asylum, their Advocate, com­passionately designing excellent things for them, though with great hardship and damage to the English. These afterwards ascribing all his Actions, his Counsels, how provident, how sincere soever, foedae Proditioni, (writes Vind. Cath. p. 223.) whilest he suffered much calumny for his desire of pre­serving many of them that fell into his hands, as some of the Assembly could witness, who were by his means preserved, and might testifie as much: Treating however with Foreigners for Aid and Protection, are restored in Bloud and Estate, not respecting a Condition in that Act, ‘That such as entered into the Roman Catholick Confederacy at any time before the Articles of Peace 1648. should not be restored as innocent Papists.’ And his Lordship dates their kindness in ad­mitting him to their Confederacy, An. [Page 64] 1642. And are these with his Lord­ship onely a few? When his Majesty had a Prospect of his Return for En­gland, he was so condescending (as having notice that Edmund Reily Archbishop of Armagh had attempted to instigate the Male contents against his coming in, promising to that end great assistance from a conjunction of the stronger Part of the Roman Ca­tholick Irish) that he had Don Ste­phano de Gameno (then Spanish Em­bassador with the States) spoken to, that by a Command from Rome, the said Reily might be revoked imme­diately out of Ireland, else he should be put to the Stress of signing a War­rant for his Execution. Considering which, as his Majesties other conde­scentions, it looks ill that so signal a Grace should be so diminutatively ex­pressed; as if a few onely were exempted by his clemency. But to return to his Memoirs.

The Earl of Castlehaven having been retired, for some difficulties concerning [Page 65] Command, (P. 96.) is now joined a­gain with the Army before Dublin, quartering near Rathmines, the suc­cess of which, his Lordship not being in chief Command, (P. 136.) I shall not mention; no Army or Party of Ar­my being ever beaten so by an Enemy as to lose their ground to the end of the Fight where he commanded in Chief: yet his Excellency had many gallant Per­sons with him; and this Lord was designed a particular Post, which he does not tell us how he quitted. However, ‘the blame is not always to be fixed where it may most just­ly be placed.’ Nor if the Lord Inchi­quin had not gone into Munster with the 1100 Horse, as he was ordered to do at a Council of War See the M. of Ormond's Letter to Lo­ghreog. f. 110., who is here 97. and else­where 63, 64, 83, 84, 97, 98, &c. reflected on as if it had been a particular Pro­ject of his own, could the Contingencies of that day have been secured, all the Gallantry that was after­wards [Page 66] shewed, being not sufficient to redeem the misfortune (I will not say the miscarriage) of that day which in time brought on the Earl of Clanrickard to be Deputy, be­fore (writes his Lordship, P. 116,) no more than a Spectator; whereas in November 1646. he was made Lieut. General of the Army and the great Confident of the Lord Lieutenant and Confederates.

Hence the Earl of Castlehaven, up­on the Lord Lieutenants retreat into France, made a Noble Figure in the following War, though it is observed, ‘not without severity and fierce Pro­secution of the English.’ And it can­not but be said, ( P. 112.) that (accor­ding to his Excellencies command) he kept a bussle as long as he could, and seasonably opposed the Duke of Lor­rain's Agent, ( P. 125.) hating to buy a supply so dear, as to give footing, or colour of pretence, or title to any foreign Prince, on hopes of succour thence. Which redounds much to his honour, [Page 67] though the Abbot of St. Katherines did land, and by the Confederates (met at Galway) was treated with, without the privity of the Deputy who was not far from them. After­wards not being able to bussle further, his Lordship, the L. Castlehav. (P. 124.) was dispatched into France for Suc­cours, which failing he procured, the Lord Deputy his Majesties Letter ac­knowledging his good Service, order­ing him that he should make the best Conditions for himself and Party, that he could. Which was the last of the Earl of Castlehaven's Imployments; but remains a standing honour to his Lordship, and a Justice due to the Mar­quess of Clanrickard's Merits.